Sitting of 20 November 1968

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

    Economic Development Council (Report)
    Mr. Joplingasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now make a statement on the Economic Development Council report on Agriculture.
    Mrs. Renéeasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement indicating how farmers and growers are to be encouraged to increase productivity in order to achieve the import savings indicated as being possible in the National Economic Development Council Report.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smithasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will complete his consideration of the National Economic Development Council Report on Agriculture; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes): I would refer my hon. Friend and hon. Gentlemen opposite to the statement I made in the House on 12th November.—[Vol. 773, c. 210–13.]
    Mr. Jopling: Does not the Minister realise that his woolly statement of last week only increases uncertainty in the farming industry? In what way does he think that the plans which he announced last week will increase the targets for agriculture over those originally announced in the National Plan?
    Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is out of touch with farming opinion—[Interruption.]—otherwise he would realise that the statement I made has been universally welcomed. Had he read my statement he would have realised that, putting it side by side with the N.E.D.C. Report on Agriculture, it went a long way towards the objectives indicated in that Report.
    Mrs. Short: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, contrary to what hon. Gentlemen opposite say, my hon. Friends—and, I am sure, the farming community generally—welcome the fact that he was able to go so far as almost to meet the requirements of the N.E.D.C. Report? Appreciating that he cannot say in advance how much help he will be giving to farmers, will he bear in mind that we are anxious about the whole problem of import saving?
    Mr. Hughes: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. The objective of the programme is to achieve an import saving of £160 million by 1972–73. As she rightly said, this has been welcomed by the farmers' unions and farmers generally.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: When will the right hon. Gentleman understand that guidelines are no substitute for giving farmers proper incentives if he really means to increase production? Is he aware that he cannot go on for ever fobbing off farmers with generalities like those contained in his statement of last week?
    Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is obviously not in touch with the views of his right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) who speaks on agricultural matters for the Opposition. In a speech which the right hon. Gentleman made in Sudbury on 1st November, he pressed me to give guidelines. That I have done, and I have gone further than he asked.
    Mr. Godber: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for referring to my speech on that occasion. I hope that he will refer to all the points I made in it which had a bearing on his statement and which showed how inadequate it was. May I bring the Minister back to the salient question which I asked

    1267
    last week but which he did not answer: will he please tell me whether his statement means that the production targets of the selective expansion programme have been raised to higher levels or merely extended by another two years? In other words—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary questions, even from the Front Bench, should be brief.
    Mr. Godber: It is necessary for me to press this matter again, Mr. Speaker, because when I asked this important question last week the Minister did not reply. Will the right hon. Gentleman now explain specifically just what are his proposals in this regard, and will he explain the figure of £160 million, which he has so far not explained?
    Mr. Hughes: My statement was absolutely clear. It should be read side by side with the objectives in the N.E.D.C. Report on Agriculture. If it is read in that way, then the objectives are perfectly clear.
    Mr. Jopling: On a point of order. In view of the totally unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's Answer, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

    Dairy Products
    Mr. Joplingasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he intends to take to stop huge quantities of dumped and subsidised dairy products damaging the United Kingdom's domestic market.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smithasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement regarding his discussions with overseas suppliers of dairy products.
    Mr. Monroasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he has made in the reduction of imports of dairy produce.
    Sir J. Langford-Holtasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why he has decided in his consultations with overseas suppliers of Cheddar cheese to lengthen the period of restraint
    1268
    from 1969 to March 1970; what the effect of this postponement will be; and when he expects to announce the conclusions of the discussions he is now pursuing actively.
    Mr. Peytonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the outcome of his talks with overseas governments on the possible limitation of their exports of Cheddar cheese to the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: My object in lengthening the proposed period of restraint on cheddar cheese imports is to meet the difficulties found by certain suppliers in adhering to the original programme. Negotiations are continuing and I am not yet in a position to make a statement on their outcome. Butter, near-butter and butter mixtures are already subject to quota. Apart from skim powder, the market for other milk products is at present reasonably stable.
    Mr. Jopling: Does not the Minister realise that because of his total inability to make up his mind on these matters and his refusal to take decisions, the Milk Marketing Board is very seriously worried about the future of our dairy products market, particularly cheese, and that the whole industry is likely to have a most serious setback unless the right hon. Gentleman gets off the fence and makes up his mind one way or the other?
    Mr. Hughes: The farmers' unions and the Milk Marketing Board support the action I have taken.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smiths: How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile his claim of success for his policy of restraint with the fact that earlier this week the Board of Trade said that of the increase of £10 million in food imports last month, £3½ million was accounted for by increased imports of dairy products? Where is the restraint?
    Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well about the import limitation controls. I have described the measures several times, but they do not appear to have penetrated his head.
    Mr. Monro: Will the Minister not realise that the dairy farmers are fed up with these delays? Can he say how

    1269
    many days it will be before he will produce results?
    Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member must appreciate that if one is to have consultations with overseas suppliers it inevitably takes a little time. There are matters to be cleared. There are a number of suppliers. These consultations are now going on, and I will bring them to a conclusion as quickly as I possibly can.
    Mr. Peyton: Does not the Minister think the time for talking is over and that the time for action has come, and that this country's doors are open, this being the only open door market in the world? Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this inundation of cheese which is coming in now is undermining the industry very severely indeed? Would he not now agree to receive a deputation of those Members of Parliament who represent the industry in order to hear and understand their views?
    Mr. Hughes: I would, of course, be very pleased to receive a deputation of hon. Gentlemen opposite and my hon. Friends on this matter, but I am taking action which will produce the quickest possible results. If I proceeded to take more formal action, asking for a more formal procedure, that would take much longer.
    Mr. Manuel: Does my right hon. Friend recognise the fact that we on this side of the House are very keen to limit imports where possible, but also, will he realise that he has a great duty to the consumers in this country not to limit imports to the extent that the consumers, through paying higher prices in the shops than they are now, would be much poorer than the farmers generally?
    Mr. Hughes: I am indeed conscious of the consumers' interest in this matter in my capacity as Minister of Food. We are constantly watching prices. The price of cheese has remained relatively stable, though I recognise that there is a problem of overstocking at the moment.
    Mr. Stodart: Is the Minister aware that, compared with those of other countries with similar problems, his efforts hitherto have been absolutely paralytic
    1270
    and that till he takes action which brings results the new policy he enunciated last Wednesday totally lacks all credibility?

    Agricultural Output and Food Imports
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, having regard to the selective expansion programme, by how much home agricultural output has risen compared with food imports; and whether he will make a statement concerning intensification of the programme of imports' substitution for foodstuffs, in view of the National Farmers' Union estimate of a saving of £250 million per annum, in imported food, given attractive prices for review commodities.
    Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Between 1964–65 and 1967–68 the volume of total agricultural output increased by some 5 per cent.; imports of food and feeding-stuffs rose by about 4 per cent., but almost all of this increase was in tropical and other kinds of food we cannot grow here. As to the second part of the question, I have already made a statement on the Government's broad objectives for agriculture.—[Vol. 773, c. 210–13.]
    Sir G. Nabarro: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the import savings he indicated in his statement last week represent about one-quarter of the potential of import saving of which agriculture is capable, in that he has spread all his programme over twice as long as necessary and at only half the rate of which the industry is capable? Will he take action more dynamic and stop faltering in his feeble approach to these important matters?
    Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman should study the report of the N.E.D.C. on agriculture.
    Sir G. Nabarro: I know it by heart.
    Mr. Hughes: If he does that he will realise that the programme which I announced is the most dynamic which has been announced for many years. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is certainly more effective than anything that was done by the party opposite in the 13 years it was in power. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the programme I announced was over a shorter time scale than the N.E.D.C. Report.
    Mr. Godber: In the light of that Report, will the Minister study his own White Paper for the last Price Review and see that the figures show that there was a much sharper increase in production in the time when we were in power than during the last three years?
    Mr. Hughes: I certainly do not accept that.

    Egg Marketing Board
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement concerning the future of the Egg Marketing Board.
    Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: As my hon. Friend said in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Maginnis) on 19th November, I hope to make a statement shortly.—[Vol. 773, c. 253.]
    Sir G. Nabarro: What is "shortly"? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the egg-producing industry in Worcestershire is in a state of chaos as a result of months of Ministerial timidity and lack of decision? Will he not get a move on and make a statement if only to put the egg producers into good order?
    Mr. Hughes: If production in Worcestershire is in a state of chaos, that must be attributable to the hon. Member, not to the Government. But I cannot accept for one moment that there has been any unavoidable delay here. The Report, as the hon. Gentleman knows, raises far-reaching issues which need careful consideration in the light of views expressed by the wide range of interests concerned. I will make a statement in as short a time as I can, possibly in the early part of next month.

    Commonwealth Sugar Agreement
    Mr. Martenasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement negotiations.
    Mr. Juddasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on recent talks concerning an international sugar agreement and the future of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement.
    Mr. Farrasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if Her Majesty's Government intend to extend the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement in view of its value to producers abroad and consumers at home.
    Mr. Monroasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the International Sugar Agreement.
    Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The annual talks between the parties to the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement are at present in progress. I would prefer not to make a statement until they are completed. I am very pleased that a new International Sugar Agreement has been negotiated to replace the agreement of 1958, which broke down seven years ago. By raising and stabilising the world market price of sugar, which has been excessively low in recent years, the agreement will benefit the sugar exporting countries most of whom are developing countries. Arrangements are being made for the new Agreement to be signed on behalf of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Marten: While recognising the reluctance of the Minister to make a statement, may I ask whether he would confirm that, whatever other issues are at stake in the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement negotiations, at least the Government will stand firm on the time of eight years for this agreement to run?
    Mr. Hughes: I naturally recognise the importance of the agreement to Commonwealth exporters, especially the developing members of the Commonwealth, but the question of timing, with other matters, is one which will have to be discussed in the consultations which are now going on.
    Mr. Judd: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that there is a danger that the Government's commitment to overseas aid and development will be called into question if the Government are not able to renew the agreement to its full length, because a commodity agreement of this kind is worth any amount of aid and other charity?
    Mr. Hughes: The Government are very conscious of the importance of this agreement. Certainly I am, and I am anxious

    1273
    that it should proceed successfully and acceptably for every developing country which is participating in the talks, but it would not be right for me to go into any detail at this stage; it would not be proper for me to do so in view of the talks which are now going on.
    Mr. Farr: Is the Minister aware of the tremendous significance of this agreement for Commonwealth immigration? Is he truly aware of the effect on Commonwealth immigration if the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement should break up?
    Mr. Hughes: I am very conscious of the importance of sugar production to developing countries—from my own personal experience. All these matters are being borne in mind in the talks which are now going on.
    Mr. Monro: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he expects the ratification of the International Sugar Agreement, because, naturally, Commonwealth fanners, particularly in Australia, want to have confidence to plan ahead?
    Mr. Hughes: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a date, but it should be fairly soon.
    Mr. James Johnson: Will the Minister constantly bear in mind that the economies at least of two Dominions, Mauritius and Barbados, will be completely sunk if they do not get this agreement, that they will be unable to balance their budgets and will face collapse, particularly Mauritius?
    Mr. Hughes: I am conscious of the importance of this to the West Indies, the Associated States, Mauritius, Fiji, and other developing countries.

    Imports
    Mr. James Davidsonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will express the quantities of beef, bacon, pork, lamb, oats, barley, soft wheat, eggs, and dairy products other than cheese, imported into the United Kingdom during the last complete period of 12 months for which figures are available, as a percentage of United Kingdom consumption over the same period.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): The Question
    1274
    asks for a number of statistics, and I will, with permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Davidson: While thanking the Minister for his reply—and I look forward to seeing these figures—may I ask him if he is aware—as I am sure he is—that the products listed are those in which the British farming industry can bear competition with any farming industry in the world, both in terms of quality and economy? May I ask that he keep that in the forefront of his mind during the forthcoming negotiations and in the form of the Price Review?
    Mr. Mackie: I am aware of the points the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, and I will bear them in mind.
    Following are the statistics:

    UNITED KINGDOM IMPORTS OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AS A PERCENTAGE OF SUPPLIES GOING FOR CONSUMPTION (a)

    (Year Ending June 1968)

    Beef and Veal

    21

    Bacon and Ham

    66

    Pork

    3

    Mutton and Lamb

    56

    Oats

    —

    Barley

    1

    Wheat

    51

    Eggs

    2

    Butter

    96

    Whole Milk Powder

    58

    Skimmed Milk Powder

    48

    (a) United Kingdom imports of the main products (excluding canned and otherwise preserved) have been expressed as a percentage of home production plus imports less exports and stock adjustments. Separate information on beef, bacon and lamb is not available.
    Mr. James Davidsonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will state the value and source of beef, bacon, pork, lamb, oats, barley, soft wheat, eggs, and dairy products other than cheese, respectively, imported into the United Kingdom during the last complete period of 12 months for which figures are available.
    Mr. John Mackie: Detained information is given in the Overseas Trade Accounts of the United Kingdom, but I am sending the hon. Member a summary.
    Mr. Peter Millsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the steps he has taken to deal with the problem of imported primary products; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Arrangements involving import regulation and designed to promote greater stability on our market already exist for such commodities as cereals and cereal products, bacon, butter and near butters, apples and pears, main crop potatoes and hops. But as I said in my Statement on 12th November, the Government is considering whether further measures for other commodities may be required.
    Mr. Mills: Will the Minister bear in mind that he was wrong in saying recently that the farmers and the National Farmers' Union were in agreement with his policies on import control? They are sick to death of inaction and feel that he is a reed blowing in the wind. We want a Minister of Agriculture who will make up his mind and do something about this.
    Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman must not mislead the House and misinterpret what I said. What I said was that the National Farmers' Union had given a general welcome to the statement I made last week. I realise that they expressed concern about import controls, but it is worth remembering that the policy on general import controls would tend to increase prices here, and we must consider the effect on consumers and the level of consumption. We are looking at the need for further measures, if necessary.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he completely underestimates the feelings of the farmers? Regardless of what the National Farmers' Union says, will he look into this matter? Unless something is done soon, a great many small dairy farmers will be in serious trouble.
    Mr. Hughes: The National Farmers' Union is perfectly aware of the steps which I am taking and welcomes them. Hon. Members must realise that I am, to a certain extent, tied by agreements entered into by the party opposite when in Government.

  Beer Prices (West Midlands)
  Mrs. Shortasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he intends to take to ensure that those West Midlands brewers who have raised the bar price of their beer adhere to the undertaking given to Her Majesty's Government in October.
  Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Brewers are sending to my Department details of all price increases they make. I can confirm that this undertaking to restrict increases to a small agreed proportion of their production is being observed.
  Mrs. Short: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on 7th October, a few days after his right hon. Friend made a statement at the Blackpool conference that she had pegged the price of beer, Wolverhampton pubs put up their prices, and that many of my constituents believe that this agreement is not being adhered to? Will he look at this again?
  Mr. Hughes: I am prepared to look at any individual case which my hon. Friend brings to my notice, but the evidence I have is that the agreement is being adhered to very well.
  Mr. Biffen: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm, for the benefit of his hon. Friend, that there is no legal requirement whatsoever on breweries to peg their prices, inasmuch as if they keep them low, they add to the Chancellor's difficulty in dealing with the domestic consumer demand?
  Mr. Hughes: The brewers and licensed victuallers are co-operating with the Government in this matter.

  Home-grown Wheat
  Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to encourage demand for bread containing a high proportion of home-grown soft wheat.
  Mr. John Mackie: We already have the millers' full co-operation in making the maximum use of home-grown wheat so we do not think that any useful purpose would be served by trying to influence public taste in this direction.
  Mr. Digby: Is it not a fact that more and more soft wheat is being used, and not much encouragement has been received by the millers from the Ministry?
  Mr. Mackie: They have had all the encouragement we can give them. There is not much scope this year anyway. We do not want to encourage much more, since I doubt whether, in view of the bad harvest, there is a supply of the quality required.
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: What is the proportion of soft wheat in bread at the moment, and what is the Parliamentary Secretary doing to encourage the growing of hard wheat in the Southern Counties?
  Mr. Mackie: The proportion of home-grown wheat in breadflour is about 20 per cent., over all types 34 per cent.

  Wheat and Barley Yields (South-West)
  Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evidence his department has of decreasing wheat and barley yields in the South-West; and what special steps he will take to offset the consequent loss to farmers.
  Mr. John Mackie: None. Although there have been fluctuations because of bad weather the underlying trend in the South-West over the last five years has still been rising. Weather is one of the risks which the fanning industry normally has to carry.
  Mr. Digby: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that this year has been particularly disappointing in Dorset, and this comes at a time when there is a serious threat to milk producers who represent our traditional industry? This is a very real problem to farmers in the whole of South-West England.
  Mr. Mackie: I agree that the Dorset figures are slightly less than those for the rest of the area. If the hon. Member wanted the Dorset figures, he should have asked; but he asked for the South-West figures.

  Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Committee of Inquiry)
  Mr. Biffenasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied that the Northumberland Committee
  1278
  has taken sufficient oral evidence from farmers and other directly affected by the foot-and-mouth epidemic of last winter; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The Northumberland Committee is an independent Committee. It is therefore for it to decide what oral evidence to take. Before the investigation began, the Committee issued a general invitation to anyone who wished to submit evidence.
  Mr. Biffen: I appreciate the Answer given by the right hon. Gentleman, but would he not agree that it is understandable that there should be widespread concern in farming circles in North Shropshire that the Committee has not felt able, in places like Oswestry, Aylesbury and Whitchurch, to take oral evidence from those most intimately concerned in the tragedy of a year ago?
  Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Committee met in Chester on 10th April to take oral evidence from representatives of farming interest in Shropshire and the adjoining counties, and they were given adequate opportunity there. If the hon. Gentleman feels that there is a need for further opportunities, I am sure that, if he conveys this to the Committee when they are on the second stage of their inquiries, this will be considered sympathetically.

  Export of Calves
  Mr. Hastingsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is aware of the current rate of export of calves to Europe; what action he is taking; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Peter Millsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in view of the fact that calves are the raw material of the beef production programme, what steps he is taking to deal with the export of calves.
  Sir Clive Bossomasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the Government's policy towards the export of calves.
  Mr. Godberasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will

  1279
  give the latest figures available of the numbers of calves exported since the beginning of August 1968.
  Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Since the export of calves to the Continent restarted in August the total exported, up to 9th November, was 13,087. In the same period last year the total exported was 7,777. The trade so far, therefore, has remained small. The exports to date are unlikely to affect the expansion of beef production, particularly as the drop in the number of calves slaughtered in recent months is very much greater than the number exported. Moreover, the breeding herd has increased over the past year despite losses from foot-and-mouth disease.
  The farmers and traders engaged in this trade are satisfying a normal commercial demand, and there is no economic reason for restricting these exports at their present level at this time. I am, however, keeping the development of this trade under review and considering all its implications.
  Mr. Hastings: I thank the Minister for that reply, and I have read carefully what was said yesterday in the debate. Will the Minister consider, nevertheless, publishing regular figures for the export of calves, say, at quarterly intervals, in order to reassure public opinion?
  Mr. Hughes: I will certainly consider that.
  Mr. Mills: How does the Minister reconcile with this policy his recent statement that he wished to see an increase in suitable calf retentions? Surely this is complete nonsense. We are exporting our raw material. Will he look at the matter again? However small the number is now, it is the future that is important.
  Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary gave a full reply, answering all these points, yesterday morning to the hon. Gentleman during the Adjournment debate which he initiated. The short answer is that the numbers being exported at present are very small compared to the total number of calves slaughtered and in retention.
  Sir Clive Bossom: Will the Minister give a much firmer assurance than the one this afternoon and the one during the
  1280
  Adjournment debate on Monday night? If the figures continue to increase, will he make a promise to the House now that he will take immediate action to stop the sometimes cruel and illicit trade from flourishing and increasing?
  Mr. Hughes: I am not aware of illicit trade or of cruelty. If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence, I hope that he will let me have it. Certainly, I will take immediate action, if necessary, and I have at my disposal the machinery to enable me to do so.
  Mr. Godber: Will the Minister not acknowledge that, whatever the figures may be, there has been a sharp increase in the price of these calves, and will this not deter many raisers from increasing production in the way in which he and his Ministry are urging the farmers to do tinder their own plan?
  Mr. Hughes: I doubt this, although it needs to be watched. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the calves are being sold by dairy farmers who are making a profit from it.
  Mr. Baxter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is a complicated question to which there are two aspects? One is the using up of our good stock calves; the other is that calves are being bought by foreign farmers, sent back to this country as white calf meat, veal, and consumed by the people of this country? Is the Minister looking into how they are being reared in Holland as compared with methods used by farmers rearing calves in this country?
  Mr. Hughes: These matters are being carefully investigated. The point which my hon. Friend has made on white veal production has not been determined by evidence. It is worth noting that, under the E.E.C. import regulations, calves under 80 kg. in weight have to be retained for at least 100 days in order to qualify for the import concessions.
  Mr. Godberasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will restore the weight limit for export of calves, in view of the expansion in this trade which is harming beef production at home.
  Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: This trade has not affected the expansion of our beef production. The first part of the Question does not, therefore, arise.
  Mr. Godber: Will not the right hon. Gentleman admit that to facilitate the export of calves must have an adverse effect on the Government's own policy, which is to expand beef production to the maximum possible?
  Mr. Hughes: We are certainly anxious to encourage the expansion of beef production as much as possible, but we must not get this export out of perspective. We had a good deal of discussion on it yesterday morning and today, and the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the figure of exports is not really large in relation to the total slaughterings and retentions.

  Intensive Livestock Production Units
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the proportion of total output of intensive livestock production units now coming from units subject to industrial rating.
  Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Information is not available in a form which would permit such an estimate to be made.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is there not evidence to suggest that the units being subjected to rating are among the most efficient in the country? Is it not anomalous that such units should be regarded as manufacturing units for the purpose of rating but not for that of S.E.T., R.E.P., or investment grant?
  Mr. Hughes: This is a difficult and complicated matter, but my right hon. Friends the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Secretary of State for Scotland are responsible for rating, and Questions on the rights and wrongs of rating or on the prospect of changes in our rating legislation are for them to answer.
  Mr. Stodart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has admitted the urgency and complexity of the matter and has said that he is considering it? Can the Minister say whether he is responsible for the delay in getting this anomaly tidied up in respect of agricultural buildings?
  Mr. Hughes: That is an entirely unfair allegation to make, as the hon. Gentleman should know.

  White Veal
  Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in view of the fact that white veal meat cannot be produced in Great Britain, he will take steps to prevent the importation of this form of meat; and if he will investigate the general problem of the importation of foodstuffs which British agriculture is not allowed to produce.
  Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The production of white veal in Great Britain is not illegal. A draft code of welfare recommendations for cattle has been circulated to interested organisations for comment, and if adopted it would discourage the husbandry methods used to produce white veal in this country. In that event the Government would propose to discuss the matter with our overseas suppliers. As regards the second part of the Question, I do not think that there is a general problem.

  Cheese
  Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what periods in recent years have British cheese producers been advised to stop production of cheese due to a glut of imported cheese on the British market; what proportion of cheese consumed in Great Britain was imported in 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966 and 1967; and what further steps he is taking to encourage the home production of dairy products generally.
  Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Farmhouse cheese makers have from time to time at the instance of the Milk Marketing Board suspended manufacture of cheese, on the general ground that their production has been expanding faster than sales. Production was halted on such grounds for 18 days in 1963 and 1964, 7 days in 1965, 11 days in 1966, and 35 days in 1968. No break in production occurred in 1967.
  The percentage of cheese imported in the years 1963 to 1967 was 57, 58, 57, 57 and 56 respectively.
  As regards future policy I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement which I made on 12th November last on agricultural objectives.—[Vol. 773, c. 210–13.]
  Mr. Roberts: Will my right hon. Friend accept that this is quite intolerable and that the situation on the importation of dairy products generally is unacceptable not only to the farming community but to the community at large, which is looking forward to a balance of payments surplus? Will he turn speedily from discussing this matter to providing some action on it?
  Mr. Hughes: Clearly my hon. Friend has not listened to my Answers to previous Questions. If he had, he would realise that there are import regulations in relation to certain milk products, and be aware of the action that I have taken on these.
  Mr. Godber: Will the Minister now explain why he will not adopt the same principle of quotas for cheese as we adopted for butter?
  Mr. Hughes: Because my action is likely to get quicker results.

  Agricultural Investment Order 1967
  Mr. Farrasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consideration he has given to the extension of the Agricultural Investment (Variation of Rate of Grant) Order 1967 after its expiry; and if he will consider as an alternative the reintroduction of the system of investment allowances.
  Mr. John Mackie: The Order was intended to operate for two years only and we are not proposing to extend it. The second part of the Question is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. Farr: I am grateful for what I heard of that reply. However, I would call the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that there is a good deal of opposition from the industry to the present system. The sooner it is scrapped and the old system returned to, the better.
  Mr. Mackie: I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman did not hear my original reply, but I cannot be responsible for the bad manners of his right hon. and hon. Friends.
  This was decided upon, and the hon. Gentleman is not quite right when he says that the industry is not too keen
  1284
  on it. I know quite a lot of people in a smaller way of business who did not get the full benefit of the allowances and who find the grants much better.

  Chocolate and Sugar Confectionery Prices
  Mr. Gardnerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what machinery exists in his department for the review of chocolate and sugar con fectionery prices.
  Mr. John Mackie: Under the early warning arrangements the leading manufacturers give our Department advance notification of their proposals to increase prices, together with the appropriate supporting information. Our officials examine these against the criteria for price increases set out in the relevant White Paper.
  Mr. Gardner: But is my hon. Friend aware that a number of manufacturers have been, in effect, increasing prices by reducing substantially the size of packs? In some cases the price increase is between 15 and 20 per cent. Will he be very careful about this?
  Mr. Mackie: As my hon. Friend says, reducing the size is equal to increasing the price. If cases are reported to us, we shall take the necessary action.
  Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Is the Minister aware that reductions in the size of many products such as biscuits, as well as sweets, goes on daily? Would this not be an appropriate matter to refer to the National Board for Prices and Incomes, bearing in mind that, according to the Press, the Board has little to do in its prices section?
  Mr. Mackie: If the hon. Gentleman has any cases to give us, we will look at them to see if they are suitable for reference to the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

  Slaughter of Poultry Act, 1967
  Miss Quennellasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends to implement the provisions of the Slaughter of Poultry Act 1967.
  Mr. John Mackie: Our veterinary staff have almost completed a detailed inspection of poultry slaughterhouses where stunning devices are in use, and

  1285
  my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Scotland, and my right hon. Friend hopes to be able to lay an Order bringing the Act into operation during this session.
  Miss Quennell: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that that is rather a disquieting Answer? What is the use of this House putting legislation on the Statute Book for the welfare of these wretched creatures when the Ministry takes so long to operate the provisions of the legislation?
  Mr. Mackie: The hon. Lady must remember that we had between 200 and 300 slaughter houses to visit and examine these matters. Looking at the whole matter of the slaughter of poultry, it is very easy when one is, as it were, on the other side of the question, but when one has to do the job, the delay does not seem quite so long.

  Transit of Poultry Order, 1919
  Miss Quennellasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to revise the Transit of Poultry Order 1919.
  Mr. John Mackie: This Order provides valuable protection for poultry in transit, but there are some particulars in which it could be improved. Proposals for a revised Order are now being prepared in readiness for discussion with the interested organisations. I am, however, unable to say when the revised Order will be ready for laying before the House.
  Miss Quennell: This is even worse. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he promised to revise this Order a long time ago? The present Order is more appropriate to the bicycle age. Will he pull his thumbs out and get on with it?
  Mr. Mackie: Yes.

  Beef Production
  Sir Clive Bossomasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will implement the proposals of the Little Neddy to increase beef production.
  Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement which
  1286
  I made to the House on 12th November.—[Vol. 773, c. 210–3.]
  Sir Clive Bossom: Does the Minister realise that, unless real new incentives are given, there will be no confidence in the future, and few beef producers will be willing to take the financial risks?
  Mr. Hughes: I made it clear to the House last week that additional resources will be required. What we want is an increased output of beef to 1972–73 similar to that suggested by the E.D.C.
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Is the Minister aware that, to increase production, the best means would be to introduce an import levy system to stop cheap meat coming from overseas, and implement the plea to stop Argentine meat coming here and, with it, the possibility of foot-and-mouth?
  Mr. Hughes: There is an element of protection at present, because beef prices are high. Dealing with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's Question, this is a matter which we are discussing with the farmers' unions.

  Fish Imports
  Mr. Gordon Campbellasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action Her Majesty's Government will take to control imports of fish, in view of the failure of agreements with certain countries on annual quotas.
  Mr. Wallasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the limitation of imports of fish and fish products.
  Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The 10 per cent. tariff on imports of frozen fish fillets from E.F.T.A. countries was re-imposed on 9th November, We are keeping the import situation generally under review.
  Mr. Campbell: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that this import duty, announced since my Question was put down, will have the effect of limiting imports of fish from Norway to the extent prescribed in the agreement, and is the report correct that Norway is raising this matter in E.F.T.A.?
  Mr. Hughes: The answer to the latter part of the question is "Yes". With regard to the first part of it, I think the hon. Gentleman will have seen from the reactions reported in the Press that the 10 per cent. duty will probably achieve its objective.
  Mr. James Johnson: What is the position with regard to wet fish landings, which have caused us enormous disquiet and anxiety on Humberside all this year?
  Mr. Hughes: Wet fish imports, except from the Commonwealth preference area, have all along been subject generally to the 10 per cent. duty, whether from E.F.T.A. or non-E.F.T.A. sources, and the recent announcement makes no change in this respect.
  Mr. Stodart: Is it not too easy for a country like Norway, which is already spending £15 million on subsidising fish, to evade the action taken by the right hon. Gentleman over the 10 per cent. surcharge simply by subsidising further to get down below the import tariff?
  Mr. Hughes: I think we must see how the 10 per cent. duty works.

  Brucellosis
  Mr. Bryant Godman Irvineasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce a financial incentive for brucella-free herds.
  Mr. John Mackie: The Brucellosis (Accredited Herds) Scheme is making satisfactory progress and I can see no need for any further incentive.
  Mr. Irvine: That is not the view throughout the farming community. Farmers feel that the time has come when some financial incentive similar to the tuberculosis scheme should be introduced.
  Mr. Mackie: The fact is that 2,300 herds are now accredited, so farmers evidently think there is something in it. The present figure for animals in accredited herds is 200,000, and that is about the speed at which we can get on with the job. The incentives are good when one realises that anybody with an accredited herd retailing milk today gets a better payment for it. There is also the incentive of having a disease-free herd; then in the near future the person concerned will get a better price for his cattle.
  Dr. John Dunwoody: Does my hon. Friend agree that the rapid elimination of brucella from the cattle herds of this country could have a significant effect on human health in our rural areas? For that reason, will he look again at the possibility of speeding up the elimination of this debilitating disease?
  Mr. Mackie: We are convinced that the speed at which we are doing this is right, and it is working. If we were to spend £40 million to £50 million, that would be different. But if we did that we should be, first, short of milk, and, secondly, short of cattle.

  Family Farms
  Mr. Bryant Godman Irvineasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will state the policy of Her Majesty's Government regarding the future of the family farm.
  Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Many of those with family farms have already built up businesses which can provide a good living for the occupiers as well as making an important contribution to the national economy. Where this is not so, the Government's policy is to help the family farmer by advice or grants, to increase the size of his enterprise.
  Mr. Irvine: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the view expressed by many family farmers that recent arrangements in the Finance Bill have made it almost essential that there should be only large corporations on these farms in the foreseeable future?
  Mr. Hughes: That is not the case. I believe that the family farmer is responding well to the forward policy of the Government. Family farmers can get help to improve management, to co-operate with others, to modernise fixed equipment, and to enlarge their farms if they can get more land. This is a constructive policy, and farmers are responding well to it.
  Mr. W. Baxter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many farmers, both large and small, experience considerable difficulties, and that employees of the farmers are receiving an income which is half that granted to refuse collectors in London boroughs? I noticed in this morning's papers, and my right hon. Friend should

  1289
  note this, that refuse collectors are getting £25 a week—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions must be reasonably brief.
  Mr. Baxter:—while the wage of an agricultural worker is exactly half that. Is it not time that we looked at the agricultural industry as a whole, to see how we can improve conditions in it?
  Mr. Hughes: I refer my hon. Friend to my statement last week.

  Scroby Sands Seals (Cull)
  Dr. Grayasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further action he now proposes following the failure of the cull of Scroby Sands seals.
  Mr. John Mackie: The cull was carried out by the Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee which has statutory powers for this purpose provided our approval is first obtained. If the Committee feels that further action is desirable, it will no doubt apply to my right hon. Friend.
  Dr. Gray: Is my hon. Friend aware that the offshore fishermen of Great Yarmouth complain that they were not consulted before this cull was carried out? They are now shooting the seals themselves. Should not my hon. Friend ensure that seals are killed in a humane and efficient way?
  Mr. Mackie: There is no restriction on the shooting of seals by fishermen, except that there is a close season when grey seals may not be shot. If he has any reason to think that they are being shot in the close season, my hon. Friend might let us know.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Closed-circuit Television
    Dr. Winstanleyasked the Lord President of the Council if he will take steps to enable the House of Commons closed-circuit television communications to be used for displaying information and announcements of the kind normally included in the all-Party Whip and for the publication of news bulletins at times when the House is not sitting.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): No, Sir. The Services Committee resolved last Session that the messages shown on the closed-circuit television annunciators must be confined to the proceedings of the House.
    Dr. Winstanley: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the message dislayed by these television screens for very long periods of the day amounts to no more than the date? Would it not be useful to display announcements to hon. Members during those periods when the screens are doing nothing else?
    Mr. Peart: I must take note of the Services Committee, which I chair and which is a representative body. To carry out this suggestion would mean having the staff responsible for working the annunciators on duty for many extra hours. We have costs to bear in mind as well.

    Questions to Ministers
    Mr. Fisherasked the Lord President of the Council whether, despite the merger of the Secretary-hips of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, he will arrange to retain separate Parliamentary Questions for these two subjects, so that hon. Members are not precluded by congestion on the Order Paper from obtaining Oral Answers once every four weeks.
    Mr. Peart: No, Sir. As I replied to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Sir W. Teeling) on 14th November, I consider the present arrangements already provide that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has an appropriate share of Question Time.
    Mr. Fisher: But has the right hon. Gentleman noticed that on Monday, when the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs was answering, only about half the Questions for Oral Answers were reached. As that is likely to prove typical, does he think that there is a case for this very important combined Department having more Question time, as the two separate Departments had until this Session? Will the right hon. Gentleman agree to look into the matter again in the light of experience over the next few months?
    Mr. Peart: I know of the hon. Member's great interest in this matter. I will sympathetically consider looking at it. Several Departments have almost as many Questions addressed to them as the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I will not weary the House with the list. This is a very difficult matter.
    Mr. Winnick: Is it not the case that over the years the amount of time for Questions and debate given to external affairs in the House has tended to go down, although there is considerable interest in the subject? Will my right hon. Friend at least undertake to look at this again in view of the merger of the two Ministries, see how it works, and be prepared to be a little more flexible?
    Mr. Peart: The decision has been made. I have said I will look at it sympathetically. All I am suggesting is that other important Departments which affect the life and the economy of our country are also in the same position.
    Mr. Martenasked the Lord President of the Council why he, the Attorney-General and the Paymaster-General are each only to answer Questions once in seven weeks; and if he will take steps to increase the frequency so that one of them answers each Wednesday.
    Mr. Peart: In fact, my right hon. Friends and I answer Questions as frequently as the other Departments on Mondays and Wednesdays.
    Mr. Marten: As the Paymaster-General now has many multifarious questions to answer for in this House, ought we not to see her here more often? After all, unlike the previous Paymaster-General, she has nothing to hide.
    Mr. Peart: I accept what the hon. Member has said, that there was no provision in the previous roster. The Paymaster-General is due to answer Questions, after only four weeks in the current roster, on Wednesday, 27th November. She will be due to answer again in the second week of the sittings after Christmas, a gap of five sitting weeks. I think that this is satisfactory.
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Lord President of the Council if he will arrange for a limit to be placed on the number of days that may elapse between a Parliamentary
    1292
    Question being put down and being transferred.
    Mr. Peart: I would refer the hon. Member to a Written Answer I gave on 23rd July last.—[Vol. 769, c. 91–2.]
    Mr. Ridley: Without knowing what that Answer said, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that Questions have been transferred at later and later dates after being put down? Is he also aware that there is a curious coincidence in that the more awkward the Question the more likely it seems to be transferred? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that this obnoxious practice by Ministers will be brought to an end?
    Mr. Peart: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, and I believe that in a particular case a Department did apologise. I will convey the feelings of the House to Departmental Ministers. I will act in the spirit of the hon. Gentleman's question.

    Press and Broadcasting (Services and Accommodation)
    Mr. Roebuckasked the Lord President of the Council whether he will give for the last convenient 12-month period the total cost of services and accommodation provided for the Press and broadcasting authorities in the House of Commons; and if he will list in the OFFICIAL REPORT details of this expenditure, including an apportionment of the relevant capital costs.
    Mr. Peart: I regret that the information asked for is not available.
    Mr. Roebuck: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the amount is not insubstantial? Has he received any approach from newspaper proprietors with a view to their reducing the immense cost to the taxpayer? Would he further agree, in view of the adverse comments in some sections of the Press about the cost of providing additional facilities for some hon. Members so that they can do their work properly, that the newspaper proprietors have a right to indicate clearly that the provision of Press facilities costs the taxpayer a large sum of money?
    Mr. Peart: I have had no communication from any newspaper proprietor.

    1293
    It may well be that my hon. Friend's Question may stimulate this.
    Most of the services provided for the Press and broadcasting authorities in the House of Commons are included in the total cost of services. No separate account is kept of the cost, for example, of lighting and heating. This is the difficulty.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Will the Leader of the House bear in mind that Members would be utterly emasculated without the Press?
    Mr. Peart: I can never imagine a situation where the hon. Member would be emasculated, or indeed is. I pay tribute to the Press, and I am glad that he, too, paid tribute.

    Scottish Affairs (Specialist Committee)
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Lord President of the Council what further progress he has made towards the establishment of a Specialist Committee to investigate Scottish affairs.
    Mr. Peart: This proposal is being given most careful consideration, but I am afraid that I cannot enter into any commitment at this stage.
    Mr. Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend say exactly what that means? Will he give an assurance that an early statement will be made one way or the other, and will he undertake to set up such a Committee this Session?
    Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend asks me exactly what it means. It means exactly what I say. This matter has been looked into very carefully. When I am able to make any other announcement I will do so.
    Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Does this mean that the proposal is dead for another year? If it is ever revived, will the Minister give an assurance that this Committee will be able to look into the conduct of the boards of the nationalised industries in Scotland, not simply matters coming within the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State for Scotland?
    Mr. Peart: It does not mean that at all. The hon. Member obviously takes a great interest, as he must. I note what he says, but I make no commitment at this stage.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this subject is of great interest to people interested in the reform of government in Scotland, and that those people, apart from those who want complete isolation, are anxious to have this inquiry to get at the facts?
    Mr. Peart: I am aware of the importance of the major principle of setting up Select Committees not just for Scotland, but for other parts of the United Kingdom, about which I have been approached. This is an important matter and I will make a statement as soon as I can.

    Select Committee on the Scottish Office
    Mr. David Steelasked the Lord President of the Council whether he will now move to set up a Select Committee on the Scottish Office with powers to meet publicly in Edinburgh.
    Mr. Peart: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I have just given to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton). I am afraid the same considerations apply.
    Mr. Steel: I was afraid that would be the answer. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is very strong agitation and concern in Scotland that the government of Scotland should be open to greater scrutiny by Members sent to this House from Scottish constituencies? Will he, therefore, accept that there is genuine pressure for this by Members of all parties, and will he make an early announcement in favour of setting up such a Committee?
    Mr. Peart: I am aware of this and I am not unsympathetic. The subject is one of a potential number for future Specialist Committees.
    Mr. Stodart: When and if the right hon. Gentleman decides to set up this Committee and it wishes to sit in Edinburgh, will he ensure that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State does not put the same difficulties in the way of that Committee as were put in the way of the Specialist Committee on Agriculture when it wanted to go to Brussels?
    Mr. Peart: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is referring to my right hon. Friend or to myself. I put no difficulties in the way of that Committee. I

    1295
    believe in Select Committees. I was the first Departmental Minister to appear on agriculture, and I gave every encouragement to the Committee.

    Palace of Westminster (Accommodation)
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Lord President of the Council what steps he is taking to seek to arrange a greater allocation of the available space in the Palace of Westminster for the House of Commons.
    Mr. Peart: It would be inappropriate to alter the present arrangements at this juncture.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is it not the case that the other place has a bigger proportion of the total space in this building than numbers, still less attendances, warrant? Will my right hon. Friend undertake to enter into discussions with the other place to see whether we can get a fair allocation for the people in this House who are more regular attenders and do more work?
    Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend must be aware of the statement made by the Prime Minister on 23rd March, 1965, about the allocation of accommodation within the Palace of Westminster. I would merely say to my hon. Friend, who rightly presses me on this matter, that the accommodation requirements of the House of Lords cannot be settled until it is known what duties that House is to be expected to perform.
    Sir C. Osborne: Will the right hon. Gentleman resist all temptation to reallocate space in this House if it involves further Government expenditure, because the country is bust and broke—[Interruption.]—and we shall soon have to go to foreign bankers to borrow more money to pay for our daily bread?
    Mr. Peart: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's extravagant language about being bust and broke, because hon. Members on both sides continually press me for increased expenditure on many things.
    Mr. Manuel: Will my right hon. Friend look into the matter again? Does he think that we save expenditure by keeping accommodation available for many persons in the other place who do not turn up, or do so only infrequently, which
    1296
    means that the accommodation lies vacant for long periods when we could have the use of it?
    Mr. Peart: I am always prepared to look at any evidence of waste in this respect. Indeed, as Chairman of the Services Committee, I know that individual matters are considered. I shall look into the matter, but I have given my answer, and I must stand by it.
    Sir H. Harrison: Does not the Minister agree that the increased number of Ministers means that there are fewer rooms for back-benchers, and will the right hon. Gentleman consider their case, because some do not get even half a room to themselves at the present time, even after many years' service?
    Mr. Peart: I have heard arguments about whether Ministers should have rooms to themselves. I believe that a Minister, of whichever party is in power, should have his own room in the House of Commons. The fact is that many more back-benchers have rooms than was the case when I first came to the House. The accommodation of the House is still a major matter which we have not settled.

    Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act, 1963
    Mr. John Smithasked the Lord President of the Council whether he is satisfied that working conditions throughout the Commons part of the Palace of Westminster comply in all respects with the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act, 1963; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peart: I am satisfied that every effort is made to conform with the conditions laid down in the Act.
    Mr. Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that conditions—of all sorts—here are no longer adequate for the amount of work that most people in this building have to do? If his colleagues are to lecture the public about modernising Britain, would it not be more convincing to begin by modernising this building?
    Mr. Peart: I should hate to lecture my colleagues, on both sides of the House. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is right. I think that the amenities which hon.

    1297
    Members have to endure here are deplorable. That comment applies for the staff as well. This is a matter which we shall have to consider from a long-term point of view, but I gave the precise answer in relation to the Act.
    Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the conditions for secretaries, especially those over at Bridge Street, and the toilet facilities, are disgraceful? Is my right hon. Friend also aware that if this were a private company it would be brought before the courts and prosecuted? It is high time that we, as a Labour Government, did something about the conditions of these workers in this building and over the road.
    Mr. Peart: I am aware of that. I have stated precisely that this is a matter which can be solved only by a major reconstruction of the House, or the construction of a new Chamber.
    Mr. Peyton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his initial Answer to my hon. Friend the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) was anything but precise? It was one of the vaguest Answers that any Minister has ever given to any Question. Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the Question? Does he think that conditions here comply with the Act? If any private employer were responsible for such conditions, would he, or would he not, face a prosecution?
    Mr. Peart: I accept that there are difficulties, and I am not dodging the issue. Exemptions have been taken out in relation to the application of the Act. This happened in relation to the HANSARD reporters. I agree with hon. Members that there are many amenities which are deplorable, but I give an undertaking that I shall look into the matter.
    Mr. Heffer: This is a matter of long standing.
    Mr. Peart: If my hon. Friend will be patient, I shall be delighted to have a word with him about the matter to see whether something can be done.

CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (VISIT TO BONN)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Diamond): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement about the closure of the London foreign exchange market and the Chancellor of the Exchequer's visit to Bonn.
The House will be aware that, during the past week, there have been speculative movements in international currency markets. The speculation has centred on the French franc and the Deutschemark and has, in turn, brought pressure on the reserve currencies, both the U.S. dollar and sterling.
Last night, the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany announced their intention to introduce urgently certain tax changes designed to encourage imports into their country and to slow down exports.
In the field where they apply, these tax changes will have the same effect as a revaluation of the Deutschemark. The amounts will be made public when the necessary proposals are submitted to the Bundestag.
Last night, also, the German Minister of Economics, Professor Schiller, as Chairman of the Group of Ten, invited his Ministerial colleagues of those countries to a meeting this afternoon in Bonn to discuss this position.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer accepted Professor Schiller's invitation and has flown to Bonn this morning.
We were informed last night that, in the circumstances, the Governments of certain other countries had decided to close or limit dealings in their foreign exchange markets today. Accordingly, we have ourselves taken action to close the London foreign exchange market today. This has been done by withdrawing temporarily the authority given under the Exchange Control Act to authorised banks to deal in foreign currency.
Authorised banks have, however, been given authority to implement contracts in foreign exchange entered into before today, to accept and make deposits in foreign currency, and, at their discretion, to meet the normal needs of travellers for

1299
travel facilities. The ordinary domestic business of the banks is, of course, in no way affected.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer will, of course, make a statement to the House on his return from Bonn, and, as the meeting there is only just beginning, the House will not expect more details from me today.
The Government's objective is to maintain order and stability in the world monetary system and we hope to restore the normal working of the markets as soon as possible.
Mr. Iain Macleod: Although this is a holding statement, the House will be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making it and for submitting himself to questions. While we are waiting for a fuller statement from the Chancellor, I would like to put just two points.
First, it is, of course, a serious step to close the London foreign exchange market. When does he expect it to reopen? I hope that it will be tomorrow, but if not, will he make a statement as soon as possible today?
Second, it seems unlikely that the Chancellor will return until, perhaps, tomorrow afternoon, and the House will want to hear him at once. Would the Chief Secretary bear in mind that it is much more convenient for the House, even at the risk of a short interruption of tomorrow's debate, say, at seven o'clock, to hear the Chancellor on Thursday afternoon rather than wait until Friday morning?
Mr. Diamond: Reopening the foreign exchange market would depend on whether other Governments wished to maintain the closure of their markets, which, in turn, may depend upon how the discussions in Bonn go on, so there will in any event have to be an announcement later on this evening.
On the second point, I realise what the right hon. Gentleman has said. It is not possible for me to say, obviously, when the meeting will end,. and, therefore, when my right hon. Friend will be able to make a statement to the House. I certainly take note of the fact that it will obviously be much more convenient for the House if that could take place on Thursday rather than Friday.
Mr. Dickens: Can my right hon. Friend say, first, what estimates he has made of the outflow of currency from the £ sterling to Deutschemarks in recent days by private speculators for private gain? Second, is he aware that many of us on this side want the Government to bring back exchange controls to prevent further speculation against the £ and to limit transactions to those for normal trading purposes only?
Mr. Diamond: It is not possible for me to make an estimate of the kind for which my hon. Friend asks. I take note of his second point and will see that his views are conveyed to my right hon. Friend.
Sir G. Nabarro: Having regard to widespread speculation about additional curbs on spending during the 28 remaining shopping days before Christmas, would the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there will be no increases in indirect taxation of any kind in our fiscal arrangements until the new calendar year?
Mr. Diamond: I can give the hon. Gentleman an unqualified assurance that, when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor addresses the House, he will be only too glad to answer that question if it is put to him then.
Mr. Barnett: In view of the backing of the recent agreements in Basle and the prospects of a surplus on balance of payments in 1969, would my right hon. Friend confirm that, in his view, the £ has nothing to fear from panic short-term pressures, and that there is no need for further heavy deflation?
Mr. Diamond: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. His view must be the same as mine, that it is the main responsibility of the Government to maintain the stability of world currency markets.
Mr. Powell: Do the Government not realise that the crazy policies which the German Government are imposing upon the German people are the counterpart—
Mr. Faulds: Nice to see you back.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must again ask the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) to control himself.
Mr. Powell: Do the Government not realise that the crazy policies which the German Government are imposing upon the German people are the counterpart of the crazy policies—
Mr. Faulds: You should talk about crazy policies.
Mr. Powell:—which this Government have been trying to impose upon our people, and that both are the symptom of the absurdity of a system of fixed exchange rates? [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Noise does no good to those who make it or harm to those against whom it is directed.
Mr. Diamond: I can only answer for the policies of this Government. I do not share the views of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) as to the policies of this Government, or, indeed, on many other things.
Mr. Faulds: The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) is a pariah.
Mr. Cant: While supporting any action which the Government may take to meet the present difficult situation, may I ask my right hon. Friend to try, in any public statement which he or any member of the Front Bench might have to make, to dissipate this atmosphere of gloom and to persuade the people that it is, if not wholly a contrivance of the hedgers and speculators, nevertheless something which the Government—here, I follow my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens)—will have to consider when conditions are calmer in international markets, and that is the relief of the pressures on sterling which spring up from time to time?
Mr. Diamond: I am not aware of any gloom.
Sir A. V. Harvey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in trying to persuade people in this matter, the newspapers for the last week have been carrying headlines every day about possible further credit restrictions? Would he agree that it is this sort of thing that creates a lot of uncertainty, not necessarily in the Government but in the £, and unsettles everybody?
Mr. Diamond: I share the hon. Gentleman's view that unnecessary anxiety is caused by inaccurate and widespread speculation. However, he will share my view that a free Press is a healthy part of our democratic institution.
Mr. Sheldon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement highlights the fact that the main economic problem of our time is not increased liquidity—valuable though that might be—but the need for an orderly and planned variation in exchange rates? Would he convey this fact to the Chancellor of the Exchequer so that he may proceed with international discussions to ensure that this point is fully seized and that it leads to the kind of orderly exchange rate variation in future which we so much need today?
Mr. Diamond: I have listened most carefully to my hon. Friend's comments and I will be only too glad to convey them to my right hon. Friend.
Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: As the right hon. Gentleman is already aware, the French, who are the main sufferers at the moment, have decided to close their markets until Monday. Does this not suggest that we are a long way away from the quick solution which the flying visit of the Chancellor to Bonn may have hinted at? Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that we are faced with a major upheaval, and should we not now, instead of indulging in cheering prophecies, look to our own defences?
Mr. Diamond: I am aware of what the hon. Gentleman said about the French position. It does not alter the answer I gave in relation to what we propose to do about our markets.
Mr. Spriggs: Would my right hon. Friend agree that nothing should be said in this House which might harm, directly or indirectly, the people who earn the wealth of the country?
Mr. Diamond: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. During the last 10 minutes or so I have been trying to carry out his views as fully as I can.
Mr. Richard Wainwright: In addition to the purely national Finance Ministers who are attending the meeting which is now taking place in Bonn, are there any international representatives there; for

1303
example, from the International Monetary Fund and the Bank for International Settlements?
Mr. Diamond: I understand that Mr. Pierre-Paul Schweitzer will be there.
Mr. Gardner: While I do not agree with all the views of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South West (Mr. Powell), and do not want to make things more difficult, would my right hon. Friend accept that millions of working people throughout Europe cannot understand why the only way to preserve our currencies is, in effect, to reduce trade? Cannot we produce a more sensible world financial system?
Mr. Diamond: My hon. Friend will be aware that both the present Chancellor of the Exchequer and his predecessor have spent years trying to achieve that very thing.
Mr. John Smith: Since the suggestion has again been made, could the right hon. Gentleman confirm once and for all what he knows to be true, namely, that it is physically impossible, legally or illegally, for British residents to speculate in foreign currencies?
Mr. Diamond: I regret that I am not sufficiently informed of the details to be able to give that assurance.
Mr. Molloy: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the remark of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South West (Mr. Powell) about current German financial policy came from a Member who seems to be embracing former repugnant German policies?
Has my right hon. Friend taken note of the fact that when a serious situation of this character arose some time ago certain big businessmen took the view that their action, while derogatory to
1304
sterling and anti-British, was, nevertheless, good business? Will he prevent that sort of thing from happening again?
Mr. Diamond: I am not in a position to add very much to what I have already said. I hope that the House will bear with me sympathetically on that account.
Mr. Biffen: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that in their approach to international monetary reform the mind of the Government is not closed to the possibility of increasing the price of gold and the movement to a system of floating exchange rates?
Mr. Diamond: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government's mind is not closed on any topic of any kind.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a lot of business today.

BILL PRESENTED
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT GRANTS (SOCIAL NEED)
  Bill to authorise the payment to local authorities in Great Britain of grants towards expenditure incurred by reason of special social need in urban areas, presented by Mr. Callaghan; supported by Mr. William Ross, Mr. Edward Short, Mr. Anthony Greenwood, Mr. Dick Taverne, Mr. David Ennals, and Mr. Merlyn Rees: read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 14.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)
  Ordered,
  That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[The Prime Minister.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [2ND ALLOTTED DAY],—considered

  HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment to Question [19th November]:
  That this House takes note of the Command Paper (No. 3799) on House of Lords Reform:—
  Which Amendment was, to leave out "takes note of" and insert "rejects" instead thereof.
  Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.
  Mr. Speaker: May I remind the House that many hon. Members wish to take part in today's debate? Yesterday, I was able to call more than 20 speakers. If we are to get the opinion of a cross-section of the House, it will help if hon. and right hon. Members make their speeches reasonably brief.
  3.49 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: Something tells me that the House would prefer to hear my elders and betters rather than that I should expatiate once again on the misgivings that I expressed last night, just before the debate was adjourned, about the patronage provisions in the White Paper. I hope that the House will bear with me for two minutes while I discuss not the composition of the proposed second Chamber, but its powers in one small respect, and that is on the question of delegated legislation.
  As the House knows, the present position is that the Upper Chamber may throw out an Order and that the provisions of the Parliament Act do not apply to it. That, I submit, is wrong. However, it is equally wrong that the Upper House, as reorganised, should have no power over delegated legislation. That goes too far in the opposite direction.
  Mr. Speaker: May I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that he had a good innings last night?
  Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I am aware of that, Mr. Speaker, and, as I said at the
  1306
  outset, I intend to delay the House for only two minutes.
  The Attorney-General will no doubt agree that it would not be beyond the wit of a ill-disposed Government—not necessarily the present one, but one of their successors—so to frame their legislation to avoid the Upper Chamber, as reorganised, altogether. That might occur if the procedures as proposed continue—which I hope, for other reasons also, they will not—but, if they are to continue, then another look should be given to the proposal that the powers of a reformed second Chamber over delegated legislation should be removed altogether.
  3.50 p.m.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) for having concluded last night's proceedings so decorously and for having raised a point this afternoon which I shall deal with in due course in my speech.
  The terms of the Motion that we are debating—to take note of the White Paper—were chosen deliberately to make discussion of many issues which are raised in the White Paper as wide as possible. That result, at least, was achieved in yesterday's debate. Out of the rough set of conflicting views which were expressed on both sides of the House in yesterday's debate, two main issues seem to have emerged: first, should we broadly accept the proposals in the White Paper; and secondly, if so, should they be brought into effect during the course of the present Parliament or only after the next dissolution?
  The proposals themselves are based on the assumption that in the framework of a modern Parliamentary system a second Chamber has an essential rôle to play, complementary to but subordinate to that of the House of Commons. Some of my hon. Friends who spoke, but who, I think, were in a minority, reject that basic assumption. Others on this side of the House, and, I believe, all who spoke from the other side, accept the need for a second Chamber. One hon. Member opposite, indeed, thought that a third Chamber would be a good idea.
  In my view, and that of the Government, a second Chamber is valuable and

  1307
  necessary. Time and again, since I have been in the House, I and the House of Commons have seen the value of Lords Amendments to Public Bills which have been through this House and of the work that is done in another place on Bills that are introduced there. For us here to do their work as well as our own would not contribute to the better functioning of Parliament in which we are all concerned.
  As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Sir Dingle Foot) said yesterday—and with this part of his speech at any rate, delightful as it was, I am able to agree—we in this House are slaves of our time-table and the pressure on our Parliamentary time, so far from diminishing, seems to be increasing.
  Looking at the matter generally, and at experience of other countries, it is significant to find that no other Western democracy of substance has functioned or is functioning without a second Chamber. The question then arises: is the present other place, with its present composition and powers, a satisfactory second Chamber for a 1968 Parliamentary system?
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: The statement has been made a number of times that no other democratic assembly is operating without a second Chamber. Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that none of those Chambers is a nominated second Chamber or in any way resembles the House of Lords, and that all of them have a democratically elected basis?
  The Attorney-General: I cannot confirm that no other second Chambers have nominated elements in them. Some, it is true, have an elected basis.
  But the point I was making is that perhaps with the exception of Denmark, no other European Western democracy operates without a second Chamber at all. Some of my hon. Friends thought that we should have a unicameral Parliamentary system in this country. I was turning to the question whether it is agreed, and it seems broadly agreed in in the House, that there is a need for a second Chamber. Is the present second
  1308
  Chamber, with its present composition and powers, satisfactory for our present day Parliamentary system?
  I do not think that anyone on this side of the House thinks that the other place is satisfactory and I doubt whether there is more than a handful of hon. Members opposite who think so, either. It has two main features which, I submit, are inappropriate to present conditions. First, the right to vote there, that is to say, in political terms the right to exercise political powers as a legislator, can still be derived from the accident of succession to an hereditary peerage. Secondly, the House still contains a permanent majority for one party, the Conservative Party. Although it may be that one or two Bourbons here and in another place may defend a largely hereditary Chamber, there is a general view that it must go. [An HON. MEMBER: "NO."] I said a general view; I have excluded the occasional Bourbon.
  The case for a second Chamber with a large built-in permanent majority for one particular party is not decently arguable, just as it is unacceptable that another place should be in the position to kill any subordinate legislation, save financial legislation, which this elected Chamber may have passed. Although its final powers of delay over public legislation and of rejecting subordinate legislation have been largely unused, the extent of those powers cannot be disregarded and the possibility that another place might use its powers remains a political fact which every non-Conservative Government must reckon with, particularly after their third year of office. It is a system, an arrangement, which is unfair and which is undemocratic, but it is a political fact of life of which I hope my hon. Friends will not be unmindful tonight.
  How, then, is the present House of Lords to be reformed? It is a daunting question which has remained unanswered by Parliament for over half a century. I submit that the answer given in the proposals in the White Paper is ingenious and constructive and, in the context of our Parliamentary system, both radical and democratic. Few of our institutions reflect constitutional tidiness—from the nature and duties of my office as Attorney-General up to the composition

  1309
  and functions of the House of Lords itself. They are the product of our history more than of doctrine, and a reflection of our talent for compromise, of which this very White Paper is, of course, an example.
  Our institutions have worked because the men and women who have worked them have been able to make them work, but also because they have been susceptible to change. Some of those constitutional changes have been gradual, but there have been moments, like the Reform Bill of 1832, when major leaps forward have been made. In the Government's view, this is one of those moments when the opportunity of achieving a major constitutional reform, and achieving it by agreement, should be grasped. I submit that it should be grasped now.
  I have said that proposals in the White Paper are democratic. I say this above all, because, first, they establish unequivocally and unchallengeably the supremacy of this House as an elected Chamber, and, secondly, because the will of the electorate will be reflected if the proposals take effect in the composition of another place as a whole, since the party which has a majority in this House and forms the Government will have a majority over the other parties in another place as well. This will be something new in the experience of a Labour Government—the knowledge that the powers of delay will rest, not in politically hostile hands but in the hands of the well-disposed and, to a small but very occasional extent, in the hands of the cross-benchers.
  The cross-benchers, in any event—this was a matter of much discussion yesterday—do not vote much on public business. When they do, as the record shows, they vote and act as individuals. They are almost invariably divided in their views. They have no corporate views or corporate organisation and, as a matter of political interest, since the present Government have been in office, being men and women of good judgment, normally they have voted more with the Government than against it.
  The Government accept that it will be important to ensure that the cross-benchers do not as a group become identified with any one party, and the proposed Review Committee would be
  1310
  expected to satisfy itself about that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Lord Shawcross."] My right hon. and learned predecessor is not the only cross-bencher in another place. I was submitting to the House that it is accepted that it would be important to ensure that the cross-benchers do not as a group become identified with any one party, and the proposed committee would be expected to satisfy itself that the cross-bench element was constituted in a way which fully maintained the independent and non-aligned spirit of its present membership.
  Mr. John Lee (Reading): My right hon. and learned Friend may be correct in saying that they will not necessarily be aligned with any party, but will they not necessarily be aligned with a party as independent Socialists or independent capitalists?
  The Attorney-General: Most of them, I think, will be just independent in a political sense. Dedicated party man as I am, I am sure that there is room for independence in another place. [Laughter.] This House is not outstanding at the moment for unqualified loyalty to any Government decisions.
  It has been suggested that reliance on cross-benchers would be avoided by providing that the Government of the day should have a majority over the membership of the Upper Chamber as a whole and not merely over the combined strength of the Opposition parties, which is what is proposed in the White Paper. But that would mean that at every change of Government a large number of new peers would have to be created to provide a necessary majority for the Government. Under the proposed scheme, the number of peers to be created on a change of Government need merely be sufficient to secure a 10 per cent. majority over the Opposition parties. I think that there was some misunderstanding in the House yesterday as to the way in which the 30 voting cross-benchers are to be selected. It seemed to be the impression that they would be bound to be either stooges of the Government or stooges of the Opposition Front Bench.
  Mr. Michael Foot rose—
  The Attorney-General: Perhaps my hon. Friend will restrain his customary impetuosity and bear with me.

  1311
  It was also not realised, I think, why the Government have proposed the figure of 30 when there are over 100 cross benchers in another place at present. The answer is that many of the present cross-benchers are occupied outside the House with their own activities. They tend to be men and women who have been nominated to peerages for a variety of reasons, but especially for their eminence in the service of the Crown as diplomats, civil servants and colonial administrators or—and this has been particularly the case since the Life Peerages Act, 1958—for eminence in a wide variety of activities, in business, in medicine, in the universities, in law, in technology, in science, in farming, in economics, and in other spheres of our social life.
  It is intended that all created peers would have a choice whether to undertake the duties of a voting peer, with the one-third attendance requirement, or whether freely to opt for a non-voting rôle. After careful consideration of the present voting and speaking habits of all cross-benchers, it has been estimated that about 30 would, in fact, be willing and able to undertake voting rights. They would qualify themselves to do so by making, in effect, a declaration of intent or a voting declaration, and nobody would have any control over whether they would do so or not.
  Sir Beresford Craddock: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the cross-benchers would be independent. May I respectfully ask him this question: supposing that some of them did not remain independent, how would they be dealt with?
  The Attorney-General: They would be dealt with very courteously, I am sure. If party political loyalties were suddenly manifested by a sufficiently large number of cross-benchers at any moment to defeat the broad intention that the Government of the day should have a majority in another place, the Review Committee would no doubt so advise, and appropriate steps could be taken.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. If the Attorney-General does not give way, hon. Members must keep their seats. I understand that he has given way.
  The Attorney-General: I was giving way only to a certain amount of clamour, not to an hon. Member, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: Then if the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not given way, hon. Members must resume their seats.
  Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas rose—
  The Attorney-General: But to the Bourbon I will certainly give way.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: I think that "Hapsburg" would perhaps be a more appropriate word.
  Is it not the whole intention of the scheme that the cross-benchers are to be able to defeat the Government in certain circumstances? What sense does it make of the scheme if the right hon. and learned Gentleman tells the House that if they exercise the functions for which they are created they will then be eliminated?
  The Attorney-General: In a moment I will deal with the exercise of powers, and if the hon. Member bears with me I hope that what I say will give him satisfaction.
  My submission about the proposals as a whole is that they are constructive, because they would allow another place to make a distinctive contribution of its own, and the two-tier structure and the cross-bench element will achieve that. It will also allow a review of functions and procedure from which both Houses should benefit by eliminating a mass of mere duplication of effort and waste of scarce resources.
  The proposals, I submit, also achieve substantially the five objectives of reform which are set out in paragraph 5 of the White Paper, of which I should like to remind the House and, in particular, my hon. Friends who are not all happy about these proposals. Let us look at them. The first is that the hereditary basis of membership should be eliminated. The proposals will achieve that. The second is that no one party should possess a permanent majority. The proposals will achieve that. The third is that in normal circumstances the Government of the day should be able to secure a reasonable working majority. The proposals will achieve that; it will be a new experience for a Labour Government. The fourth

  1313
  is that the powers of the House of Lords to delay public legislation should be restricted. The proposals will achieve that. The last is that the Lords' absolute power to withhold consent to subordinate legislation against the will of the House of Commons should be abolished. The proposals will achieve that.
  For a Labour majority in this House, with the Government's legislative programme Still incomplete and in the latter half of a Parliament, to throw away the opportunity to achieve these objectives would be the height of folly, and for Parliament as a whole not to grasp this opportunity of sensible and constructive reform would also be a mistake of the first order.
  Mr. John Mendelson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend address himself to the point that caused controversy and disagreement between the two Front Benches yesterday? My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services claimed that the check on the Commons would be less and the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) claimed that it would be more effective.
  The Attorney-General: I shall deal with that point a little later.
  First, I want to deal with the objections raised to the scheme, particularly one that obtruded considerably yesterday—namely, that this scheme represents too great an extension of the Prime Minister's patronage. To some extent, this objection reflects a misunderstanding of the way in which members of political parties are selected for peerages. The convention is for the Prime Minister of the day to consult the leaders of the other parties before putting forward names from those parties for peerages, so the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) and the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) are closely involved in deciding which members of their parties should be recommended. The so-called patronage, therefore, is not the Prime Minister's alone.
  Quite apart from this, there will be two new features in the proposed arrangements which do not exist at the moment and which may mitigate some of the faults that the patronage system may hold. These two new features are,
  1314
  first, the committee which has been proposed to review the composition of the reformed House and, secondly, the convention on numbers.
  About 80 new creations will probably be needed at first, but most of these would be conversions from peers by succession. Thereafter, 50 or 60 might be needed at each change of Government. In 1964, the year of the last change of Government, there were 55 new creations, including those made by the outgoing Administration, and there has been a total of 146 since the beginning of that year.
  I emphasise that the proposals secure the right of the life peer to vote whatever his speaking or voting record in a party political sense may be. This security does give him a measure of freedom and independence which would be difficult to achieve under any other arrangement—appointing him, for instance, for a term of years. Even through a peer may have been nominated by his party, he will, as experience has often shown to the discomfiture perhaps of the party political leaders, not necessarily support his party or his leader indefinitely; and it must be remembered, in considering the whole working of patronage today, that the party leaders themselves are answerable directly to the electorate and are objects of the watchful eye of the Press. They would soon incur odium if, in these days, they abused the power of patronage.
  It can be said of the exercise of the power of patronage in recent decades that at least it has been free of the taint of corruption. That was not the case when the Bryce Commission reported in 1918 and it is not surprising that against the background of operations of gentlemen like Maundy Gregory and others, who touted honours about, the Bryce Commission thought the nomination of peers by the Prime Minister to be unacceptable.
  Not all of a Prime Minister's recommendations for the peerage concern members of his own party. The names which the Prime Minister recommends to Her Majesty in the half-yearly honours lists include men and women of high distinction from many other different activities. Through their wide knowledge and experience, they are particularly well qualified to assist in the deliberations of the

  1315
  upper Chamber. Many of them have sat on the cross-benches and no doubt will continue to do so. The question where they should sit and how they should vote is entirely a matter for them.
  Concern in this context has been expressed about the suggestion of payment of salary to Members of the other place. In my view—and I suspect that this view might well be shared by some of my hon. Friends—it would be intolerable if, because of inadequate means, men and women otherwise admirably suited to serve in another place were prevented by poverty and lack of means from doing so. But I wish to emphasise that the whole question of remuneration will, if the proposals are accepted, be referred to an independent committee like the Lawrence Committee, which reported upon salaries of Members of this House.
  As yet, the method of payment is undetermined, as is the amount. The committee may recommend—I know not—a sliding scale depending on attendance; it may recommend—I know not—that there should be no payment at all save to those who have a substantial record of attendance. We shall see and we shall consider, if the proposals are implemented, the recommendations of that independent body in due course. I have little doubt that it will take all these factors into account.
  Mr. Frank Tomney: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it would be intolerable if former Members of this House who sit as cross-benchers and are also in receipt of patronage of expensive political appointments were also to receive House of Lords salaries?
  The Attorney-General: Again, these are matters which the committee would consider and I feel that, in this respect, if these proposals are to be implemented, the less by way of guidance or instruction this House or another place gives to such a committee the better.
  Mr. Christopher Mayhew: Granted that the nominations come, in effect, from the parties, does that mean that this House can play no part whatever in the nominations? After all, we have Select Committees here, the members of which are nominated by the
  1316
  Whips, but at least the House has to approve. Is there no kind of way in which the House could be brought in on this?
  The Attorney-General: I know of no direct way in which this can be done, but I imagine that a Prime Minister who abused the power of patronage or exercised it in a way that was intolerable, for whatever reason, would be the subject of considerable attack on the Floor of the House, which is not reluctant to move into the attack if there is any abuse of powers of this kind.
  I come now to the powers of the reformed House of Lords. It has been said that the new powers on Public Bills are very similar to those possessed now and that there would be no significant reduction in the delaying powers of another place. In my submission, that criticism is misconceived. The philosophy behind the new powers is that the second Chamber should not be able to say, "No" but only, "This needs looking at again".
  At present, the Lords can say "No", and that is the end of the Bill for that Session. The Government can reintroduce it in the next Session and another place cannot say "No" again, but the Bill must go through all its stages in the Commons and if another place does not pass it or formally rejects it it can become law only at the end of that Session, which would have to be closed early if the Bill was urgent and if the delay was to be kept to a minimum. The result of this procedure is likely to be serious dislocation of the Parliamentary timetable, a considerable waste of Parliamentary time, and possibly the sacrifice of other important items of legislation.
  These difficulties will be substantially removed under the new scheme. After the period of delay following disagreement, a Bill could be presented for Royal Assent on a simple Resolution of this House, and that Resolution could be passed either in the Session in which the Bill was introduced, or in the next Session, or even in the next Parliament. The Resolution and the carry-over procedure will make a real difference in terms of flexibility generally, and will be much more appropriate than the present powers of a non-elected Chamber. This

  1317
  new arrangement will formally establish the supremacy of the elected House of Commons and will remove the special threat which there has always been to the legislative programme of a Labour Government in the last two years of a Parliament.
  In this context, I will now refer to certain exchanges which took place in the House yesterday on the way in which a reformed House could be expected to use the powers which it is proposed to give it under the White Paper proposals. Given the fact which is recognised in the White Paper that under our system of government a Government are responsible to, and should be responsible to, the elected House of Commons, it seems extremely unlikely that a reformed upper House based on nomination would seek to exercise its remaining delaying powers to frustrate any major legislative proposal which has been carried in this House. If this did happen, I can well envisage that whatever Government were in power might indeed take a hard look at the working of the new arrangements.
  Mr. Mendelson: My right hon. and learned Friend has just said that he thinks that it is extremely unlikely that a reformed Upper House would seek to frustrate a major legislative proposal carried in this House. On what authority does he base that statement? Lord Mancroft, a leading peer, has already said on television that up till now the Lords were not credible to the country and could not use their powers; now they can use them and will effectively and frequently use them. What authority does my right hon. and learned Friend have to speak against that?
  The Attorney-General: I make my estimate of what is likely to happen. I think that in the situation that I have envisaged, in which the reformed upper House will be a nominated Chamber and where the party with the majority in that Chamber will be supporters of the Government of the day, it is unlikely that the situation I have spoken of will arise. If it does arise, I would deem it unlikely in that situation, where a major Bill has gone through the House of Commons, that the reformed Chamber would seek to turn it out.
  Mr. Heffer rose—
  The Attorney-General: Just a moment.
  This is not an easy matter. If it did happen, I imagine that it would be an extremely rare event. If it happened too frequently, I think that we would have to look again at the proposals which have been made.
  Sir Douglas Glover: Is the House to understand that the Government's policy on this reformed Chamber is that the Upper House will have delaying powers, but that if it uses them the powers will be taken away?
  The Attorney-General: I have not said that at all. It is the expectation and policy of the Government that the powers should be given. They are powers—
  Mr. Heffer: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
  The Attorney-General: Just one moment. Let me answer one question at a time.
  If the situation arose that I have envisaged of a reformed, nominated House coming into being, the powers it has in its possession will be limited and, as I have said, my expectation would be that those powers would, in respect of a major Measure of the Government, be used very exceptionally indeed. At present, this Labour Government face the risk, during their last two years, of these powers being used extensively, deliberately, to destroy the legislative programme of the Government.
  Mr. Heffer: My right hon. and learned Friend is arguing that the powers which will be granted are not likely to be used. Surely the logic of that is: why give the Lords any powers at all?
  Mr. Charles Pannell: Or give them any salary.
  Mr. Heffer: Precisely.
  The Attorney-General: I think that it is appropriate that they should have the powers. In matters other than major legislative proposals, of course the power of another place will exist. In regard to legislation affecting the rights of individuals in the sphere of planning or civil liberty, or whatever it may be, I can think of a whole range of legislative proposals or matters for debate where they

  1319
  should have these limited delaying powers.
  Sir Frederic Bennett: I am sorry to press the Attorney-General on this, but it is rather important. I had thought that the whole point of these changes was to get rid of unreal powers which the Lords had and which could not be used without the accusation being made of their being unconstitutional, in favour of much lesser powers which could be so used. The Attorney-General has, to put it mildly, now cast some doubt on whether even the new powers will be used by a reformed House. Admittedly, he has drawn a distinction between major measures and minor legislative proposals, but it is only his definition. How can the Attorney-General argue that we are making any progress if we are halving the powers and saying that, if they are used, retribution will still follow?
  The Attorney-General: I think that we are making real progress. I have indicated the nature of the new delaying proposals, which are of a character which will cause the Government of the day to think again if the delaying machinery is invoked; but will avoid circumstances where the legislative programme can be wrecked by a series of such interventions and where even in a given individual case the working of the delaying procedure in regard to an important Bill can dislocate the work of this House for many months by reason of requiring the whole process of a Bill's being reintroduced through all its stages to take place.
  Yesterday, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) asked me to say whether Scottish peers could be excluded from the proposals without breaching the Treaty of Union. This provision has not been overlooked. Paragraph 50 of the White Paper states:
  "There are strong constitutional arguments, based on the presence of Scottish peers in the House of Lords ever since 1707, and practical arguments arising from the existence of separate Scottish Law which make it particularly important that the reformed House should include a suitable number of Scottish peers."
  As the White Paper says, it is the Government's intention to ensure that there shall continue to be a considerable number of peers who can speak with authority
  1320
  on the needs of the different parts of the United Kingdom, including Scotland.
  Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: This is a point which we have an opportunity of putting to the Attorney-General only at this stage. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that under Article 22 of the Act of Union there was a guarantee that there were to be 16 Scottish peers for the first and any subsequent Parliament of Great Britain. Does not the Attorney-General agree that any figure less than 16 would be in breach of the spirit of the Act of Union?
  The Attorney-General: The right hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that the reference to the 16 peers in the Act of Union has been repealed, by Section 4 of the Peerage Act, 1963. That provision abolishes the arrangements for the election of representative Scottish peers, and provides that all members of the peerage of Scotland may sit in another place, so that the principle of elected hereditary peers has thus already disappeared from the Statute Book. As I say, the Government have this matter of representation for Scottish peers very much in mind.
  Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to me, and I raised this question with him. There is this element, this difficulty about voting. The existing hereditary peers, or the hereditary peers who were there before the recent changes, have voting rights without necessarily having to attend. It could be extremely awkward for Scottish peers to have to attend a whole lot of business in which they are not interested. What I was wanting to get from the right hon. and learned Gentleman was whether these voting Scottish peers will have to attend as much as other United Kingdom Members.
  The Attorney-General: I think that a requirement for voting rights of one-third attendance ought not to be excessive, either in another place or in this House. We shall have to look at the practical working of this matter.
  The right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) expressed some concern yesterday on the question whether the proposals on subordinate legislation give the other place as much opportunity as should be given, and, like the hon. and

  1321
  learned Member for Darwen at the beginning of today's debate, he asked for more information about the Government's proposals. I can assure the House that the Government in proposing any future Measures which may involve the delegation of legislative powers will not take advantage of the relaxation of control by the other House over subordinate legislation. I imagine that this House would give them a rough time if they sought to do so.
  We have suggested in the White Paper that the possibility of rationalising Parliamentary control over subordinate legislation might be a subject for consideration by a Joint Select Committee of both Houses. There is a great deal of duplication here, a great deal of wasted resources, and this is the sort of sphere in which a reformed upper House could make so much easier collaboration of this kind.
  Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Is it not wrong to bring forward a Bill, as presumably the Government are doing, excluding the power of the Upper Chamber on delegated legislation until these other reforms have been worked out, because if such a Bill is brought forward in the present parboiled state, such matters as the Rhodesian Order, whatever one may think of it, would not be within the competence of the Upper Chamber?
  The Attorney-General: I do not think that I can add anything to the matter at the moment. The Government have undertaken, and I certainly undertake on their behalf, to review the rationalising of Parliamentary control over subordinate legislation as soon as these proposals are brought into effect.
  The right hon. Member for Barnet attached the greatest importance to one point, upon which unhappily he and his Party disagree with the Government. This was the matter of timing as he called it. As I apprehend, right hon. Gentlemen opposite consider that it would be improper, and they contended that it would be without precedent to reform the composition of another place in a way which would diminish the rights of any of those Members, except at the beginning of a new Parliament. They argued that to do so would be contrary to the spirit of the Writ of Summons
  1322
  which all present Members of another place have received.
  They also argued that it would be wrong to base the composition of the reformed House on the present representation of the political parties, since that reflects the political situation at the time of the 1966 General Election. Previous reforms of the composition of another place have generally added to its membership, leaving intact the rights of existing Members.
  On the rare occasions when Members have lost their right to sit, the Measures concerned have taken effect during the course of a Parliament. Many peers have, in practice, for many years disregarded the terms of the Writ of Summons, and the existing arrangements for leave of absence, in effect, overrule the Writ of Summons. In any event, no existing Members would lose their right to sit in the House, although, admittedly, some would lose their right to vote there.
  I submit that there are strong practical arguments for introducing the proposed reforms as soon as possible. It is highly desirable that the reform should be evolutionary in approach, with no abrupt break with previous traditions, and it would be an advantage for the reform to come into effect during a Parliament, so that the working conventions upon which so much of the scheme will depend, and which have been established between the parties, could be adapted and applied to the new situation without the need for the parties to adapt themselves simultaneously to a new Parliament and to the new circumstances of a reformed House.
  The Upper Chamber would be in a very invidious situation in any period between Parliament's agreement to the scheme for the reform and its implementation. From the point of view of the Government, it would be less subject to control than at any time since 1911. Furthermore, the development and closer integration of the functions and procedures of the two Houses would also have to be unnecessarily delayed. Accordingly, it is the view of the Government that the White Paper proposals should be brought into effect during the course of this Parliament, and I accordingly commend the White Paper to the House in those terms.
  Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman sits down, would he answer—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. I think that the right hon. Gentleman has resumed his seat.
  4.37 p.m.
  Mr. Iain Macleod: When my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition invited me to take part in this debate, I welcomed it as I thought of it as a sort of calm oasis in the acrimony of economic discussions. It has not turned out like that. The truth is that in five days' debate, three days in another place and two here, no one will even secure the full support of his own side of the House. Normally, if one makes a speech which irritates the other side of the House, one has the comfort of warm approval from one's own side. The odds in this case are that one is irritating one's own side as well.
  With my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), I was a member of the all-party committee. I started with more doubts about reform than any other Member of the 10 or so Members of the two Houses who spent many months together on these issues. I would like to pay my tribute to the spirit in which the talks took place. I want to put to the House that this White Paper, with all our reservations—and I have the most serious reservations, particularly about the timing—is something of an achievement, and not something which we should lightly discard. I saw in the papers that it was said that the Home Secretary was not very enthusiastic when he held a discussion at his party meeting.
  I am sure that exactly the same comment could be, and will be, made about my speech today. I do not find that surprising in the least. After all, we seek all-party agreement on one of the historical points of difference between all parties. It is not an easy quest, but it is not one that we should readily or lightly abandon.
  Mr. Joel Barnett: Would not the right hon. Gentleman consider it equally as important as having all-party agreement between the two Front Benches that there
  1324
  should be agreement between all hon. Members?
  Mr. Macleod: Yes, of course I do. I am coming to that point. I do not know whether I will carry the hon. Gentleman with me—it is most unlikely—but I will do my best.
  Yesterday, the first three speeches after the Front Bench speeches were made by the right hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Sir Dingle Foot), my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) and the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton). They have about 65 years' experience of the House of Commons between them. I thought that they made first-class House of Commons speeches, and, with a good deal of wit, warmth and venom, they turned their not inconsiderable fire power upon this White Paper and blew some holes in it.
  But we must also take into account not just that they attacked the White Paper's solution, but that each of them produced mutually contradictory answers. The right hon. and learned Member for Ipswich said, "Away with the White Paper. What we want is an elected second Chamber." My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said, "Away with the White Paper. Let us leave things as they are, warts and all". The hon. Member for Fife, West said, "Away with the White Paper and, for good measure, away with the House of Lords as well."
  If there is an unholy alliance, not just between the Front Benches, or some members of them, but between the three parties—because I have the feeling that the Liberals are keener than anybody else on this reform for reasons to which I will come—we might at least glance at the alliance that there will be in the other Lobby on these proposals. I do not hope to compete in sanctity with them. I merely say that, in logic, we shall have a slightly better case to put forward.
  There are two fundamentalist approaches still lingering over these debates. One sees the House of Lords as carrying the last torch of freedom against a revolting, presumably Left-wing Government in the Commons. The other sees it as a sort of sinister cabal bent on destroying the Labour Government's last

  1325
  year. I think that both points of view parted with reality years ago, and I do not think that they represent the thinking of this House.
  There are three choices: abolition; leave well alone; and reform. Reform has many variants, as probably the first two choices have.
  I regard abolition as a slogan rather than a policy. I found the speech of the former Leader of the House convincing on the point of the extra work which will fall upon the House of Commons if there is not a second Chamber. It is of no light importance that every country of comparable size and importance with this country has a second Chamber, and it would be odd indeed if the Mother of Parliaments, after 750 years, declared that all her children were bastards and we had to start again on an entirely different system.
  The question of the load of work which would fall upon this House is clearly formidable, but I do not think that we have considered what would happen if there were not another place, however one defines that term, which could also look, not just in the revising sense but sometimes in the initiating sense, at some of the work done here. Let me take one example. It is necessary for the conduct of business—and this is always done by Governments with great regret—to introduce a Guillotine from time to time. The Opposition invariably protest, which, again, is quite right. But the majority must have its way and, therefore, the Guillotine has been accepted for very many years as part of the procedure of the House of Commons. It has meant that large chunks of many Bills have been un-discussed in this House.
  How do we get over this difficulty if there is not some other place which can consider some of the Clauses and Schedules which are passed under the Guillotine without a murmur in this House? We already have, if anything, too much legislation, and it is too indigested. It would be appalling if some of that legislation were passed without a single word or comment in either House. Therefore, I do not believe that abolition is anything more than a slogan. I do not believe that it is a policy.
  1326
  Secondly, there is the suggestion that we should leave well alone. Naturally, as a Tory, this has considerable attraction to me. Twice yesterday Belloc was quoted—
  "Always keep a hold of nurse,
  For fear of finding something worse."
  It seems to me a somewhat uninspiring approach to one of the great constitutional problems of our time. Surely this point was conceded long ago. It is not a victory which the Secretary of State for Social Services has won in the last month or two.
  Here, I should like to quote from page 3 of the agreed statement published as a White Paper in 1948:
  "(2) The revised constitution of the House of Lords should be such as to secure as far as practicable that a permanent majority is not assured for any one political party;
  (3) The present right to attend and vote based solely on heredity should not by itself constitute a qualification for admission to a reformed second Chamber."
  That was the view of the leaders of all parties, including the Conservative Party, 20 years ago. We know very well—
  Mr. E. Shinwell: What happened to the White Paper?
  Mr. Macleod: The White Paper was agreed. What was not agreed was a different proposal which comes under the heading of "delay". It is all explained in the White Paper. These principles were agreed and were part of an agreed White Paper no less than 20 years ago. It is unquestionably a fact that there is a very strong feeling for reform among the Members of another place, and not least among the Conservative and younger Members.
  If, in the end, there is to be reform, surely it is best done by agreement. No course of action commands a majority of support in this House. If there were no Whips on, I think it quite likely that the Motion, if it were a Motion to approve the White Paper, would be rejected. But if there were a Motion before the House that we should leave things untouched and as they are, I am pretty certain that it would be rejected by a larger majority. If there were a majority simply to abolish against the possibility of an agreed reform, I believe that that would be rejected by a still larger majority.

  1327
  We therefore not only have to consider the fact that we shall not all get our own way—which is not uncommon in Parliament—but also to consider whether it is worth seeking for—and I believe that it is. That is why I speak as I do this afternoon. I believe that it is still worth seeking the highest common factor of agreement. I therefore say to hon. Members, with respect as someone who was formerly Leader of the House, that I hope that they will study these proposals with greater care than I feel they have yet received.
  That is all that I ask. If the House then rejects our work, I shall regret it, but I shall accept it. But let us remember that if we tear up what we have done, we shall leave the retentionists and the abolitionists glaring at each other and we shall have lost the best chance in 50 years of reform by agreement.
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: May I put to my right hon. Friend the point which I would have put to the Attorney-General had he not sat down so quickly? Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) made the very important point that since these negotiations took place last Session the Government have decided to set up a Commission on the Constitution. Will my right hon. Friend deal with the possibility of putting this White Paper in a pigeon-hole until that Commission has done its work?
  Mr. Macleod: I will deal with that when I discuss timing, although that is not my major objection in relation to timing.
  I wish to speak in detail on two points only, but they are the most difficult: first, the question of the cross-benchers and, secondly, the question of timing—and I will not forget the point made by my hon. Friend.
  Let us look at the question of the cross-benchers, remembering, if the House will, that I am a fiercely party political animal. Let us see them as they are now and as they will be if the White Paper comes into operation, and then let us see whether the measure of influence which they might acquire is or is not suitable. I thought that some of the things said about the cross-benchers yesterday were, to put it mildly, unhappy.
  1328
  I think it unfortunate that they should be called stooges, which was a phrase used by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser).
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West went a good deal further. They are to be appointed on the basis that they have no strong views of principle on the way in which the country ought to be governed, and upon the premise that they will fluctuate from case to case, from question to question, and will not seek to decide in the light of such general principles as bind us respectively together in this lower House.
  I must say to my right hon. Friend that not all wisdom is party political wisdom. There are Members of Parliament in another place who do not have party political ties, but who, nevertheless, may feel very strongly indeed upon such matters as the rights of man and our obligations to our fellow citizens. There are some who are cross-benchers at the moment because of the accident of office. Lord Wigg's name has been mentioned. He is Chairman of the Horserace Betting Levy Board. He is one of the hundred.
  But it stands to reason, I should have thought—and I am sure that Lord Wigg would sue anybody who suggested otherwise—that Lord Wigg would not qualify under the heading of being "independent and non-aligned", which is the wording of the White Paper. Therefore, when we consider the 30, we are not, with deep respect, considering Lord Wigg. There are other illustrations which I could give.
  What sort of people have we in mind? Unquestionably, the largest section are those who have given great service to the State and often to different Governments. Let us think of one or two names. There is Lord Bridges, who was the senior civil adviser both to Churchill and to Attlee. There are people of a new generation, like Lord Caccia, or people outside the Civil Service, like Lady Reading, who gives enormous service to our country. Some of them—they are getting very old—are the great captains of the last war. There are some governors or governors-general of important ex-colonial or present Commonwealth States. There are presidents of some of our great Royal Colleges. These men are

  1329
  not weathercocks. If we study carefully—as the inter-party conference did—the voting of those we call cross-benchers, we find that it does not, in fact, conform to any preconceived pattern; and I am certain that this can be secured for the future as, in fact, it already exists. These people are there.
  The selection, of course, is extremely difficult, and I do not particularly like the method put forward in the White Paper. But unless there is only to be a party majority, with all that that implies—arid then, indeed, the upper House would be lackeys of this House—then some solution such as the cross-bencher must be brought into our thinking, and nobody has yet put forward a better idea.
  I come to the question raised by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) and others about the use which they will make of their powers. This can only be a matter of opinion. With respect I agree with the Attorney-General, rather than with the Secretary of State. I think that these powers will be used very, very rarely indeed and—this is a point of answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett)—they will be used on the merits of the case and without the overwhelming consideration, "Will this action or will it not precipitate a constitutional crisis between the two Houses?"
  I have two reasons for saying that the powers will rarely be used. The first arises from the sheer mathematics, which I do not think have been studied closely enough, certainly as it appeared from any speech which I have heard in the debate. The second arises from the nature of the people concerned, some of whose names I have given. Let us take the figures: 105, 80, 15 and 30 cross-benchers. Let us assume a Conservative Government. That Government, under the new system, could be defeated in the House of Lords only if every Labour peer, every Liberal peer, every peer of any other party—nationalist or any other which might exist—and 80 per cent. of the cross-benchers all voted together against that Government.
  I think that hon. Members have not yet addressed their minds to the likelihood of that. And even if it happened, what then? There would be the imposition of
  1330
  a six months' delay—no more—and that six months would include any carry-over. If hon. Members work out the percentage which is needed of cross-benchers, in addition to carrying all the other parties which may exist, it will be clear to them that the threat to Government business is relatively small.
  Secondly—and this is a matter of opinion—I believe that the powers will very rarely be used because of the people whom we have been discussing, who are men and women of the highest authority in our public life. One must remember that the overwhelming number of those who need to be so revolted by the action which a future Government might take that they would nearly all come together and make common cause with all the minority political parties. In that case—and in that case only—a minor degree of delay could be imposed.
  Both from a study of the mathematics and from a study of the House as it will be, I believe that these powers will be used very rarely and that when they are used it will be on a true case in which it is right for a Government to be asked not to back track, but just to think twice.
  Mr. Frank Hooley: The right hon. Gentleman assumes an absolutely monolithic vote on the Government side, whoever may be the Government of the day. Is this not a very sweeping assumption?
  Mr. Macleod: One can use that argument about other parties as well, and it is an argument which can be used in relation to this House.
  I turn to the only other point I wish to put, which is on the question of timing. With great respect, I would say to the Attorney-General that he answered points with which I am not deeply concerned. My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) also drew attention to the point, which was raised by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition yesterday, in relation to paragraph 23, with its concluding sentence:
  "It would be wrong to establish a second chamber on a regional basis until the outcome of these studies is known."
  I take that point. It is a strong point, but it is not a point that I wish to put to the House tonight.

  1331
  Driving away from here after 10 o'clock last night I had the privilege of listening to the Secretary of State on the 10 o'clock news, and he said that the only difference—it is not the only difference, but it is the main difference—between the parties was on the question of timing, and that he thought that the right interpretation of the Tory point of view was—I think I quote his words aright—"If old Bee had one last sting in her she should be allowed it." That was very naughty of him, because he knows very well that it is not the point which I had raised and which I had quite specifically put in the memorandum I sent him a month ago and from which I will paraphrase the part excluding that particular point.
  What he is dealing with is the question of powers. Let me make it clear that it is not constitutionally in dispute that the powers of the House of Lords can be properly diminished during the lifetime of a Parliament. Of course they can. The Act of 1911 and the Act of 1949 are clear evidence of this. I do not, therefore, from the constitutional point of view, criticise the proposals put forward. I may criticise them on other grounds, but not from the constitutional point of view. It is relevant in this context to notice that the Labour Party's General Election manifesto of 1966 referred only to powers.
  No, my objection is a much deeper and a much more fundamental one than this. It is not even on the point about the writ of summons. I think it wrong to take away from Members of Parliament rights which they have been granted for that Parliament. It is one thing to add to those rights, as has been done. It is one thing to add to the choices—of renunciation, or whatever it may be—which are open. But that is not what is suggested here. I think it is a pity, to put it no higher, to take away from Members of Parliament—in this case, members of another place—rights which the Writ of Summons gives them for that Parliament. My main point is quite simply this: it would be utterly wrong for the Prime Minister in the declining months of this Parliament to seek to exercise unprecedented powers of patronage
  1332
  by nomination on the basis of a General Election held in March, 1966. That is the point which I wish to put before the House.
  It is not relevant who will win the next General Election. I am not suggesting that the Prime Minister will abuse his powers of nomination. I am relying on the phrase, the famous line people will remember from Tennyson:
  "Authority forgets a dying king."
  It is for this reason that Churchill took Attlee to Potsdam; it is for this reason that now President Johnson and President-elect Nixon agree as far as they can on almost every point—of foreign policy, in particular.
  Let us be quite clear what may happen if we move on composition in late 1969, or in 1970, before we have the view of the people at the next General Election. I look at the provision made for the other parties. I look at the 15 seats which the Secretary of State said were for the Liberals. On an intervention by me he accepted my correction that they were for all parties other than the main Opposition party. Let us consider the position of the Liberal Party as it is. It has 12 Members in this House out of 630. If the proposal in the White Paper is unaltered that party will have 15 Members out of 230. Quite clearly, that is grossly excessive, even taking into account that this House is, and is rightly, over-generous, if anything, towards the claims of minorities. But the point is that that is in terms of 1966.
  What will happen in 1970 or in 1971? I hold no brief for the Liberal Party, nor for the Scottish Nationalists, nor for the Welsh Nationalists. It may well be that the verdict of the by-elections so far is wrong. It may be that the Nationalist challenge will disappear at the polls. Personally, I hope it does, but we must not anticipate in this matter the will of the people, and we must not preempt their verdict as, unquestionably, we would do if we filled this part of the composition before the next election takes place. Suppose that the by-elections are right. Suppose that the General Election confirms that verdict. Suppose that the Liberal Party is greatly reduced, almost extinguished, in the Commons. Are we to say that for all time it is to have a platform in the other House?
  Mr. Eric Lubbock: Before the right hon. Gentleman is so incautious as to make predictions about the Liberal Party in 1970, would he care to recall that before the 1966 and 1964 elections he predicted that I was going to lose my seat?
  Mr. Macleod: I think it is almost certain that I shall be making the same prediction again. I am an extremely consistent man.
  It may be, of course, that, as the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) has suggested, his party will do better than the by-elections show, even than the 1966 election showed. Anything is possible, even that. What I do say is that that party of all parties ought to wait to see, that that party of all parties ought to be ready to take the verdict of the people before these matters are settled and established.
  Therefore, this is my argument, and I hope that the Home Secretary is clear now on what is to me the main point. It is not on the Constitutional Commission, it is not on the Writ of Summons, it is not on precedents: it is merely the question of the use of the nominating power overwhelmingly in the last Session of a Parliament.
  There are many ways round these problems and I would be grateful, not perhaps tonight but on some other occasion, if the Home Secretary would put forward the views of the Government. It might be possible, for example, for a number of the conversions, which will be large in any case, to take place irrespective of the date on which legislation takes effect. It might be possible for the part of the Bill which refers to powers to come in, if this is the real anxiety of the party opposite, before the part of the Bill which refers to composition.
  Whatever it may be, my view is clear, that in the sensitive areas, particularly in the areas which I have mentioned, those nominations can only be made by a Prime Minister with a fresh mandate from the people and on the latest evidence of what the people of the United Kingdom think.
  I turn, lastly, to the vote tonight. I very much regret that the Government have thought it right to issue a three-line Whip on this matter, but that is domestic to them. It is also a matter of some
  1334
  importance to the House of Commons. I have made it clear that on this side of the House there will be a free vote. I do not know on what criteria hon. Members will make up their minds. The hon. Member for Fife, West said yesterday that, if the Secretary of State thought that it was a good bargain, it was not possible for my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) also to think it a good bargain. I cannot follow that line of reasoning. If it is a good bargain, it can well be a good bargain for both sides of the House of Commons.
  I beg the House to keep in mind the point which I stressed at the beginning of my speech. Of course, it is possible, with brilliant and witty speeches, to shoot holes in the White Paper. No one knows this more clearly than those of us who were members of the inter-party talks, but no other solution commands more support than the one that has been put before the House. The free vote leaves me free to vote as I wish and, although the fact that the Government terminated the talks frees me of any obligation to the inter-party talks, yet I shall vote against the Amendment because the Amendment seeks to reject the White Paper, and, for me, that cannot be the right course. I have made it clear that if, at a later stage, the Government are not more flexible on timing, on which I have laid such stress, I will oppose the Bill, if one is produced, with all my strength.
  The last thought that I wish to leave with the House is this. In 1948, we came very near to agreement. Looking back on it, I think that it was the fault of the Conservatives that we did not. I very much hope that my party will not make the same mistake twice.
  5.15 p.m.
  Mr. E. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) has told the House his intentions if the vote is taken tonight. He could do no other. He is a party to the agreement, and to have voted for the Amendment would have been dishonest, which is the last thing I would expect of him.
  He is a superb debater, but he has begged the question almost entirely. I do not intend to enter into a detailed argument with him on what I regard as

  1335
  the trivialities of the White Paper; they were brought out yesterday in their many variations. I direct attention to the final passage of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. Although he is a party to the agreement, and, presumably, to the philosophy underlying the White Paper, he has so many reservations that when the Bill comes before the House the agreement already entered into will be no more than a facade. The fact is, and it is not merely an assumption, that if the Bill is not amended in line with the observations of the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), who addressed the House yesterday and the expressions of opinion made by hon. Members on the Opposition benches, there will be even more tribulation for the Government, more argument against the Government's legislation, and even more derision than was manifest in the course of the debate yesterday. The Opposition do not really mean business.
  For example, the right hon. Gentleman made observations about timing. If the Government refuse to give way, what will the right hon. Gentleman do, and what will he advise his hon. Friends on the back benches to do? The Opposition will not accept legislation unless it provides for the kind of timing to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. If he or any of his right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition benches cares to refute my assumption, by all means let him do so.
  This is the substance of the problem. An agreement was reached, but unless the Opposition get what they want when the legislation is produced, they will oppose it; so what do the Government gain? The situation, then, would be remarkable. Not only would there be a majority of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite who would vote against the Government's legislation, in view of the reservations they have made, but a substantial number of my right hon. and hon. Friends will also vote against the Government because they dislike the whole concept.
  During the course of this debate it has become clear that this scheme has not been carefully thought out. For example, there is the cross-bencher difficulty,
  1336
  although I agree 100 per cent. with what the right hon. Gentleman said about the quality of cross-benchers in the other place. Yesterday some derogatory remarks were made about the hereditary peers, and no doubt those remarks were intended to apply to some of the life peers. I do not hold that view. I know something about the old nobility, going back many years, having read the constitutional history of England. I have also read about the noble families of Scotland.
  I know how the peerage came about. I know how James I of England, previously James VI of Scotland—that rascal, if ever there was one—created in one fell swoop 54 peers. He did so because he was hard up. He persuaded them to hand over their wealth and, in return, he sent them to the other place. The same applies to the four Stuart Kings, who created 200 peers in their reigns. Then there was George III, who created 128 peers in his reign. We know something about their exploits and their land owning. Nevertheless, I do not indulge in any derogatory terms about their successors. After all, they are not to blame for what their ancestors did.
  Mention has been made of the quality of the cross-benchers. However, it is not a matter of their quality but of their function. Can we be sure that they will retain that independent quality of mind so essential to form judgments, irrespective of party considerations? If they were capable of doing that, they would be a remarkable set of characters. It is impossible to be in any assembly for a period without being converted to some idea or other and adopting partisan attitudes to it. I sometimes agree with the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), though I do not expect that he ever agrees with me.
  This has been a most remarkable event. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not in the Chamber at the moment. He never cares to listen to me, anyhow, but no doubt he will read what I say. He gave us a short autobiography yesterday when he spoke about his early days as a student and a don at university and how he was in favour of the abolition of the House of Lords lock, stock and barrel. He said that he had changed his mind since, as if he required to tell

  1337
  us. We are familiar with his changes of mind. They are commonplace. When I see a reference in the White Paper to the need that will emerge in the consideration of functions for some amendment to the proposed legislation, I realise that my right hon. Friend is preparing himself for another change.
  Sir Douglas Glover: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Shinwell: My right hon. Friend is a person of high intellectual stature. No one doubts his brilliance. What he lacks is wisdom, and it is a troublesome defect. It is embarrassing to have such fertility of ideas. Of course, there can be no finality. That is why I do not pay very much attention to what the Government propose now. What is important is what they will propose next time and the time after that, though whether they will be here to undertake the task, I am not prepared to say.
  Yesterday, both Front Benches seemed to be in agreement, apart from certain fundamental reservations, as I think the right hon. Member for Enfield, West will agree, because he has expressed them. Hon. Members on the back benches, with a few exceptions, were completely in revolt against both Front Benches. What conclusion should we draw from that? If I had the authority, I would say, "Sack the lot". However, we must always be ready with constructive suggestions, so I suggest that they be seconded to the other place, and I will offer no objection to their receiving reasonable salaries.
  What troubles me about this affair is what happened yesterday, and I do not mean the debate. I want to present the matter as I see it. I do not know whether hon. Members will agree with me but, as I see it, the Government presented a White Paper to the House asking us to take note of it, presumably to ascertain the views of right hon. and hon. Members. In the course of yesterday's debate, they learned those views. If the Government had decided before the debate to put down a three-line Whip, I could have understood it. It would not have made much impact on me, because my mind has been made up for some weeks. But what happened was that they decided suddenly to put down a three-line Whip. By that action,
  1338
  this Government stand condemned. In all my experience of this House, going back a long way, I have never known of any Government responsible for such an action. In effect, they are saying, "We ask for your opinions. We would like to know what you think about the White Paper and its philosophy." We express our views honestly in this democratic assembly, and the Government say, "We do not care a tinker's curse what your views are. We intend to go on with this legislation." It is not good enough.
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Shinwell: This is a matter of confidence, and one has to have confidence in one's friends. One does not expect to have confidence in one's enemies. That does not matter. Mistakes and errors of judgment occur. Having been in Government myself, I can understand that. But in a matter of this sort, the Government have to be fair and honest with us. They ask for our views and we give them. In return, they put on a three-line Whip, and that means the withdrawal of the Whip if we do not support the Government in the Lobby. I, for one, will not be ordered into the Lobby. The Government's action is most distasteful and disturbing. I regret that they felt it necessary to take this step.
  I want now to touch upon some of the points which have been raised in the debate. For the purposes of accuracy, I have jotted down one or two of the proposals contained in the White Paper, and I will deal with them briefly.
  I cannot recall any occasion in this House when the Government's policy has been treated with such derision and contempt. There have been occasions when it has been rejected, argued against, lambasted, and the rest of it, but never has it been treated with the derision which we heard yesterday. I do not agree with those who want our proceedings televised. If it had been televised yesterday, with all the humour, sarcasm and jibes which we heard, what a feast it would have been for independent television, or even the B.B.C. It was a shocking display quite inconsistent with Parliamentary decorum. However, it should be said that right hon. and hon. Members on the back benches are not responsible.
  Before the proposed Bill comes before the House, my advice to the Government

  1339
  is to think again and provide the necessary emendations to deal with the objections raised by hon. Members on both sides. If there is to be agreement let it be a fair agreement, honestly reached, and then we can go ahead.
  I come now to what the right hon. Member for Enfield, West said about the second Chamber. When I was associated with the Labour movement at the beginning of this century we wanted to abolish the House of Lords because it was regarded as a place whose members indulged in exploitation and disliked the idea of a Labour Party, or even the Liberal Party. When the Liberals came into power in 1906 and 1910, which led to the Parliament Act in 1911—I was engaged in public life at the time—a change came about. The House of Lords has always been regarded as a reactionary assembly because of the hereditary principle.
  The right hon. Member for Enfield, West said that we must have a second Chamber. I accept that, but not because of its powers, authority and its privileges. I do not worry because of its reactionary disposition. I accept it as a symbol. Why bother about it? My view about the White Paper is abandon it and allow matters to remain as they are. After all, when it comes to what the House of Lords has done vis-à-vis Government policy, the Government have very little to complain about. Those in the other place could have been far more harsh than they have been. They could have given us much more trouble, but they have not. Perhaps they were afraid or thought it unwise. I cannot say. However, the House of Lords has not given the Government much trouble.
  Why introduce this legislation? Why proceed with this policy? Have we not got other difficulties and problems? The right hon. Gentleman begged the question. He tried to distract attention from the main issue by talking about congestion in this House and too much legislation. Here is an example. A Committee stage and all the hullabaloo, furore and the other place sitting up until 1 o'clock in the morning. God knows what it will do tonight, and for many days afterwards. Of course there is too much legislation. But there is a way of dealing with
  1340
  an abundance of legislation. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) may not agree, because we have debated this matter before. He prefers that the House should sit every day. I have held the view for a long time, in the sphere of Parliamentary reform, that the House might sit on two or three days a week and use the other days for Committees.
  I come back to an idea that was ventilated many years ago about have a group of 50, 60 or possibly 100 capable, intelligent people: trade unionists—there are many intelligent people among them—bankers, financiers, businessmen, economists—although we have probably too many of those—and lawyers, a body of men and women who would meet occasionally as a kind of economic council to advise the Government. What do the Government do at present? They consult with the C.B.I. and innumerable organisations outside. I wish that they would consult with us a little more often. On this occasion they have consulted us, but they will not listen to what we have to say. Therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman wants to diminish the amount of legislation, there are ways of doing it. If we are busy we must tackle the job. That is all there is to it.
  I come now to the point about parliamentary reform. This, after all, is what we are considering. We have had a great deal of so-called reform in the past two or three years. To translate the French proverb—my French is execrable, so I will not try—the more things change the more they remain the same. Parliamentary reform, in the opinion of some of my hon. Friends, is having a room, a secretary and a couch. I have always wondered what they want a couch for! We have been setting up Specialist Committees—then we hamstring them—we do not give them authority. What is the good of that? That is not Parliamentary reform.
  We brag about Parliamentary democracy. I believe at one time it was possible; now it is a masquerade. We cannot have Parliamentary democracy in a situation like this when there is consultation and no notice is taken of those with whom we consult. That is not democracy. Democracy is not so much a matter of mechanics; it is a matter of form, of quality, of attitudes,

  1341
  of atmosphere—a collaboration of those qualities. That is what democracy means.
  We talk about participation. The word "participation" is on the lips of every one of my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench, and I give them credit for it. But how is it implemented? We have party meetings. One idea that I have about Parliamentary reform is that we ought to have the Press present at our party meetings. We should have no more leaks, no more hand-outs. The more publicity we have the better the participation.
  Yesterday my right hon. Friend spoke about trying to avoid a constitutional crisis. I know that the right hon. Member for Enfield, West will not agree with me, but the Labour movement will get nothing of value without a constitutional crisis. The Labour movement will get nothing by agreement. That is in the very nature of things. We get something for the trade union movement like 3½ per cent. or 5 per cent., depending on circumstances, and so on. We may get a measure of agreement among hon. Members in this House on an all-party matter, but on a fundamental issue we will not get agreement. And we will not get complete agreement on this issue, as will be seen when the Bill is introduced. So why talk about avoiding a constitutional crisis? It is not a bad thing to have a constitutional crisis occasionally. There would have been precious little reform, political, social or industrial, without a crisis. The whole history of this country over the past 150 years at any rate, and going even further back, indicates crisis after crisis, and as a result something useful has emerged. That applies not only to the Labour movement, but to the Conservative Party, which has had its crises. The Liberal Party had a crisis in 1922 leading to the situation we have on the benches opposite. So let us have no more nonsense about that. I will not trouble the House by going over the details, because it was all thrashed out yesterday.
  I come now to what I regard as the crux of the problem. We could furnish constructive ideas about the other place. One idea is to abolish the hereditary principle. I am in favour of that, although we are to permit a number of hereditary peers to be injected into the life peerage
  1342
  set-up. They are men with experience and judgment—business and professional people, and so on. The successors of hereditary peers will not be allowed to vote in the Lords, but they will be there. They will be able to speak and use their influence. It is sometimes possible, without having a vote, to use influence, and it will be used as long as the hereditary peers remain in that Assembly.
  I come, now, to the cross-benches. Reference was made to my old friend Lord Wigg as a cross-bencher. Can anyone imagine George Wigg being impartial on a matter concerning the Labour Party? Of course not. If he is discovered by the Prime Minister to be impartial, he may be told to clear out. He will become a non-voter, with no salary. What sort of set up do the Government expect in the other place? Is this a circus they are promoting? It is bad enough already—voting peers, non-voting peers, hereditary peers, all sorts of peers and cross-benchers with the function of determining whether there should be delaying powers or not. In fact, cross-benchers will be the bosses. What a business this is.
  I advise my right hon. Friends to abandon this idea immediately. They ought to think again. Insufficient thought has been given to this very intricate problem. We are dealing with a constitutional matter, and it is bound to be intricate. We have to take into account the political history of the country, and other aspects of public life. We are dealing with the quality of those individuals who may be entrusted with the function of government. I suggest that my right hon. Friends should forget this idea. Instead of doing that, they intend to press the matter to a Division, with a three-line Whip. There will be trouble in the party again. Some of us will be forced to go into the Lobby with some hon. Gentlemen opposite, something which we have been trying to avoid for many years.
  The right hon. Member for Enfield, West was embarrassed when he rose to his feet this afternoon because there were no cheers from the other side, no enthusiasm. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, at our party meeting, inspired no enthusiasm. A man cannot inspire enthusiasm in others unless he has enthusiasm within himself. How can we be enthusiastic about this proposal when

  1343
  there are so many other important things to do?
  I prefer the other place to go on as it is. It was a grievance to us when we were young. It has remained a grievance with us. When we had difficulties in arguing our case we could always point to the other place, and I am the last person in the world to abolish a grievance. I hope that my right hon. Friends will take my advice.
  5.43 p.m.
  Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: In one respect the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) has made a good, classic, Conservative speech for leaving things as they are. On the other hand, he had some doubts about the characteristics of cross-benchers. One thing that can be said about the right hon. Gentleman is that he is not a cross-bencher. He is an ardent member of the Labour Party, and will always come to its support unswervingly and unhesitatingly when it is in trouble.
  I hope that I shall not embarrass the right hon. Member for Enfield West, (Mr. Ian Macleod) if I say that, with one exception, he made the most notable contribution to the defence of the Government's White Paper. I found his arguments in their defence very much more convincing than the Government's own arguments as advanced by their Front Bench.
  The exception I make is, hardly surprisingly, the right hon. Gentleman's reference to minorities in general, and to the Liberal Party in particular. The right hon. Gentleman has always been somewhat paranoiac about the Liberal Party. I think possibly the reason is that he is always referred to in the Press as having a liberal conscience, and therefore he has always found the Liberal Party to be a standing reproach to him, not only from the days when we used to battle with him over the constitution for Northern Rhodesia, but in many other matters, when he talked like a Liberal, and voted like a Tory.
  But the right hon. Gentleman is at least consistent in the contempt that he has for minorities in general, and the Liberal Party in particular. He manifested this most clearly in reference to another place during the 13 years the
  1344
  Tory Party was in power. I shall have a word to say about that in a moment, because if there is any need to see that we have a convention whereby not only majorities and major parties, but minorities, are adequately represented, and that there are established conventions and constitutional agreements, the need is made pre-eminently necessary by the contempt with which minorities were treated during the 13 years when the Tory Party was in charge of patronage.
  As the right hon. Member for Easington rightly said—and he has perhaps a greater knowledge of the span of the battle between the two Houses than almost any other right hon. or hon. Member—in this House, no party has been returned to power by the electorate and has had to suffer greater obstruction at the hands of a hereditary and unrepresentative House than my own. Indeed, the House knows well that a radical programme of social reform was, at its best, delayed and, at its worst, totally frustrated. I believe that we have probably underestimated the traumatic effect which that had upon the pattern of politics, particularly on the Left in this country. I therefore applaud the fact, without for the moment expressing an opinion on the White Paper, that we are going into the questions of composition and powers of the other House.
  I was a member of the all-party conference, and I regret that we did not have wider powers of reference, because, as I shall seek to show, I should like a root and branch reform of the other House. There are, however, certain matters which I welcome. Obviously I agree with the elimination of the hereditary principle. It has always been totally indefensible. As Mr. Lloyd George said, not even with a pair of spaniels was the first pup necessarily the best of the litter.
  Secondly, it is a tremendous advance to have ended, or to be in sight of ending, the permanent Conservative domination of the other place. I believe that the members of the other place themselves, apart from a few backwoodsmen, welcome that as much as anybody. One has recent painful memories of the Rhodesia Order. The fact that we are abolishing completely the power of veto over subordinate legislation is again an advance. The fact that any Government

  1345
  is assured of a reasonable working majority is an advance, and under this system it looks as though we could remove the threat that in the latter stages of a Government's life their legislative programme would be blocked.
  I believe that this is an advance, and I am amazed that so much agreement came out of the Conference. Speaking as a Liberal, all I can say is that if Mr. Lloyd George or Mr. Asquith had put one-tenth of these proposals to the Tory Party 50 years ago they would have been in danger of their lives.
  I believe, first, in the principle of bicameral Government—
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: Should not the right hon. Gentleman refer to former leaders of the Liberal Party by their correct titles?
  Mr. Thorpe: I do not have the same love of hereditary peerages as the hon. Gentleman has. I prefer to refer to them by the names by which they made their reputations, and by which they were honoured in this House. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not taking longer over what I believe is a rather peripheral point.
  I believe in a bicameral system of government. I am as dedicated as any to this House of Commons, and we can take some pride that our authority at least rests on popular vote, however distorted the electoral system may be which gives this result. Clearly, in financial matters we are sovereign, but the question which, it is surely our responsibility to ask is what is the best form of government that can be evolved, and not whether our amour propre is going to be offended. I am not so arrogant as to think that this House could never benefit through having a second Chamber which could say to it on an issue, "Think again," particularly in the light of the experience of the guillotine and the pressure of Government business.
  One of our main criticisms, also, is that there is inadequate time for debate, and I will not say that there will not be benefit at times in having an alternative forum in which matters can be aired again, a place in which non controversial legislation—the Mines and Quarries (Tips) Bill was mentioned in the White Paper—could be initiated. I
  1346
  would go so far as to say that those who are advocating a unicameral system of government are claiming the infallibility of this House and refusing to accept that there could be any occasion upon which it could be preferable or beneficial for us to be told to think again or for ideas to be canvassed in that Chamber which might be of some persuasive authority in this. That is why I believe in a bicameral system of government.
  I have one major qualification over this White Paper, and that is that I regard it as purely temporary and transitional. Indeed, if I felt that it was anything else, I should not be prepared to vote for it. I can in fairness say that I made it plain, as did my other Liberal colleague—perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield, West thought that we were over-represented, since there were two Liberals at the conference, one from each House—that what we wanted was a root and branch reform, in which the House of Commons would be an assembly which was elected, wholly or in part, and was representative of the nations and the regions of this country.
  When the 1911 Act was introduced, the Preamble, to which I need not refer, made it plain that this was to be purely a temporary Measure in so far as it was of limited application; that they were dealing merely with certain specific powers and that it was certainly without prejudice to subsequent reform, which would be general and sweeping. It will be very interesting, if a Bill is published, which is perhaps hypothetical—
  Mr. Heffer: I am very interested in this point and was going to mention the Preamble to the 1911 Act, which made it clear that that was to be a temporary step towards a second Chamber on an elected basis. Why then, 40 years after, is the Liberal Party accepting a White Paper which cannot possibly, if it is carried through, be a temporary Measure but is likely to be with us for another 40 or 50 years?
  Mr. Thorpe: This is the point to which I was coming—why I think that there are grounds for believing that this can be a temporary matter and why I intend to cite certain parts of the White Paper to which the Government must commit themselves and on which I hope to bind them.

  1347
  The hon. Gentleman is correct. The Preamble to that Act wanted a second Chamber constituted on an elected instead of a hereditary basis. There is certain authority in the White Paper for the proposition that we can tie this Government down to accepting that these are temporary and transitional measures. If I am wrong in that, I will find it very difficult, when the Bill is published, to give it my support, but I believe that it is possible for that deduction to be made. I should like at least to examine it and see whether the hon. Gentleman agrees.
  Paragraph 23 refers to the fact that two Royal Commissions are at present sitting and dealing with local government matters. This is in reply to the argument that it should be an elected House, perhaps by local authorities, and certainly representative of the regions. The Government say:
  "It would be wrong to establish a second chamber on a regional basis until the outcome of these studies is known."
  In other words, it is not excluded as a possible outcome of the recommendations of the Royal Commission. The Government go further in paragraph 50 when they say, referring to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland:
  "If the proposed Commission on the Constitution leads to changes which would make practicable or desirable new methods of securing the presence of members with knowledge of the various parts and regions of the United Kingdom these methods could be introduced at a later date."
  They also, in paragraph 65, refer to the fact that, when the Church Commission has reported, it will probably be necessary to amend the position of the bishops as well.
  In paragraph 23, they rightly say that the sort of second chamber which I should like to see is only the sort of chamber which one finds in what is largely a federal system of government, and they refer to Australia and the United States of America. Even the Secretary of State for Social Services, when he was making clear yesterday what he had sought to say at the Labour Party meeting, said:
  "What I actually said was something very different: that this reform when it becomes law will not exclude the possibility of introducing any new methods of self-government and regional representation at a later stage."—
  1348
  [OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th November, 1968; Vol. 773, c. 1141.]
  For my part, I want to see a federal system of government in this country. I see the day when this House, which I think has too little power, because it has too much responsibility—it has to deal with too many matters—has greater power over fewer matters. For that reason, I want a federal system of government.
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Why not wait for the Royal Commission's Report?
  Mr. Thorpe: The answer is that the Royal Commission will not report in under four or five years. The Prime Minister himself made it plain in the debate on the Address that, notwithstanding that, the Government would not feel precluded from introducing legislation or amendments if they thought fit.
  So I believe that the possibility of eradicating the hereditary system, of getting rid of the veto, of reducing the delaying powers, of doing away with the permanent Tory majority, represent a good temporary measure and step in the right direction. Therefore, I support this proposal, but only on the firm understanding that it is temporary and nothing more.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: I was wondering why the right hon. Gentleman was digging so deep to put a meaning on obviously unclear words, when he has a spokesman on the Government Front Bench who could answer a clear question if it were put to him. Could he not ask the Attorney-General, are the Government suggesting that their proposals are temporary or transitional? They have used no words to give that impression. One would have to accept, indeed, that this is their considered view of a situation which will last for some time.
  Mr. Thorpe: Far be it from me to speak on behalf of this Government, but I would have thought that the hon. Baronet must concede that a Government who set up a Commission to consider the relationship between the nations and the regions of this Island are likely to have it in mind that some form of constitutional change will be recommended. Therefore, I say, not for 30 or 40 years have we had a climate in which there is a more real possibility of constitutional change. That

  1349
  is why the second Chamber will obviously have a part to play in any reform and why it is neither illogical nor unreasonable to draw that deduction.
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for answering the question which I put to my right hon. Friend. Could he now say what he visualises as being the terms of reference of the Commission on the Constitution, since that is vital?
  Mr. Thorpe: A suggestion was contained in the Prime Minister's speech on the Address concerning this matter, and I believe that I do not breach any confidence when I say that the Home Secretary has invited opinions about whether the terms of reference are wide enough or whether there are matters which should be introduced by way of amendment. This is a matter for discussion; indeed, the Prime Minister made it a matter for discussion.
  I know the outcome I want to see, which is domestic Parliaments in this country organised in the way in which it operates in Australia and many other politically advanced countries. It is that this House should be a federal chamber. I aired this view at length when, unfortunately, the Conservative Party left the battlefield on the Queen's Speech, so I will not repeat my arguments.
  I hope that the Home Secretary will remember that a series of helpful background papers were placed before the Conference. They gave strength and argument to many of the propositions contained in the White Paper. It would be for the convenience of the House if it were possible for agreement to be reached that these papers should be made publicly available. An enormous amount of work went into their preparation and the arguments in them played a great part in changing my attitude during the course of the Conference.
  An argument adduced by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West today—and by the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) yesterday—is that this reform should not be introduced during the present Parliament. I do not agree. The right hon. Member for Barnet said that there was no urgency and that other matters should be given greater priority. I suggest that if it is possible to reach agreement on a reform which it is generally
  1350
  conceded will improve the efficiency of government in Britain, then the sooner it is introduced the better.
  The next Conservative argument is that the reform should not be based on the 1966 voting figures but should wait until the next General Election. Again, it is the very formula that has been outlined in the White Paper—the 10 per cent. majority in the Lords for the Government of the day over the other political parties, excluding cross-benchers, coupled with the committee which has been mentioned—that makes it possible to fix the number of seats in the other place at this stage without our having to await the outcome of the next election. If the principle is accepted that the Government of the day should have a majority over the opposition parties, then why need we wait until after the next General Election.
  I am slightly cynical about a wish for delay in this matter on the part of the Conservative Party. I am led to wonder, should a Conservative Government come to power, whether they might feel that some minor amendments should be made, on inspecting the matter more closely. Nor does the suggestion that the position of minority parties might be changed do much credit to the right hon. Member for Enfield, West. I therefore cannot agree that this form of reform should be postponed.
  The Conservative Party is really saying that hereditary peers should not be expected to give up their political rights until the matter has been put to the electorate and the electorate has had a chance to pronounce on it. This is a most extraordinary doctrine for Conservatives. It must be the first time that Conservative hereditary peers have felt that their future should be subjected to the views of the electorate.
  Sir D. Glover: The right hon. Gentleman is misquoting my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), who did not say anything of the sort. He said that if the Government introduced a Bill he would not mind if its powers were implemented straight away, but that he did not think that the constitutional question—the number of peers in the House of Lords—should be settled until later.
  Mr. Thorpe: The hon. Gentleman's hearing of his right hon. Friend's remarks was similar to mine. The logical corollary of the Tory argument is that hereditary peers should not be expected to give up any of their political rights until the electorate has been consulted. That is what a General Election is for. That is the logic of the Conservative case and it is a strange case coming from that quarter, particularly the hereditary section of it.
  The two-tier system has been criticised, perhaps more in another place than here. I was not attracted to the idea initially, but I believe that it is a humane way of phasing out those who, either through age or inability to attend, do not qualify to be voting peers. It will also enable people of experience to attend the other place and make a contribution.
  The next great argument laid against this form of reform is the patronage of the Prime Minister. The patronage of any Prime Minister is very great, and it always will be. However, Prime Ministers are perhaps not given to the wickedness which it has been suggested by those who have attacked patronage—
  Mr. Roy Roebuck: What about Maundy Gregory?
  Mr. Thorpe: He was never Prime Minister. Even Conservative Prime Ministers have appointed Labour hon. Members of this House to be ambassadors or high commissioners. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh?"] Sir Geoffrey de Freitas in Ghana was a good example. Likewise, Labour Prime Ministers have appointed former Conservative Front Benchers to be ambassadors. There are many appointments where Prime Ministers must act, and it has been established that they can sometimes think above the ordinary battle of party politics.
  Nevertheless, I welcome the proposal in paragraph 31, which would limit the discretion of the Prime Minister. It has been suggested that it is appalling for the three political leaders to be able to nominate people for the House of Lords. I agree. I would infinitely rather have a method of selection based on the principle of election; again, if part of the House of Lords must be appointed, we in this House would have consideration in
  1352
  filling those appointments. As a Guardian leader indicated, I would far prefer, however, if there are to be such appointments, that they were made by people who are living today, who are answerable to their supporters and who have a certain reputation to maintain for making good appointments. That would be preferable to relying on the descendants of the appointees of dead kings or even deader Prime Ministers.
  While an advance on the present system would be made by the adoption of the paragraph 31 proposal—and I do not believe that that is necessarily something which we need immediately—I speak as a member of a minority. In another place there are 19 of my colleagues who regularly attend, who are expected to man committees and share in the chairmanship of them, and play a not inconsiderable part in the House. It is interesting to note that under the Life Peerage Act—although cross-benchers, Conservative and Labour peers were appointed, the Conservative Prime Ministers of the day, two in number, were careful to see that no Liberal creations were made.
  Had there been in existence a committee of the kind suggested in paragraph 31, a party which felt that there was an imbalance, particularly if it was being criticised—as occurred under that legal luminary and intellectual giant. Lord Dilhorne, when, on almost every occasion, he chided us if a Liberal spokesman had not given his views—could make representations to ensure that such a criticism was not the end of the matter. But that was far from the end of the matter. The names of those likely to be submitted were, I think, not unknown to the Conservative Party.
  It was also not unknown that one Prime Minister, Mr. Macmillan, had determined that whatever else he would do, at all costs that one person in particular would be excluded from sitting in the House of Lords. Fortunately, that person now does sit in the House of Lords. It is possible that there may have been another person in that category. That is the sort of patronage I dislike and against which one has to guard. Therefore, when people talk about patronage and when the right hon. Member for Enfield, West talks about

  1353
  over-representation of minorities, I suggest that they should look at the behaviour of his own party in regard to minorities.
  With regard to the conventions, it is quite obvious that there will have to be a certain code of honour laid down and adopted. I do not agree with the suggested allocation, either in logic or in justice, to my party. It is not without significance that the only matter which sparked the right hon. Member for Enfield, West into action yesterday was to correct the Secretary of State by saying that the 15 did not refer to the Liberal Party but to minor opposition parties.
  Mr. C. Pannell: A small thing.
  Mr. Thorpe: It is an important thing. The right hon. Gentleman has been too used to being in a party with a majority for many years. I say one thing for this Government; they recognise the existence of minorities, and for that I pay them full credit.
  Suppose that 15 or 20 Nationalists were elected in the next Election. Obviously they would have the right to representation in another place. The same would go if a number of Communists were elected, or a number from any other recognised political group. Suppose there were 20 Nationalists and 18 of their seats were won from Labour Members of Parliament and two from Conservatives. What would then be the position? Would they automatically take their share from the 15 of the minor opposition parties, leaving unscathed the political representation of those parties who by losing seats in the Commons had caused this accession of 20 M.P.s in the Commons. Of course that would be wholly unfair.
  This is the sort of thing that we have to discuss in order to get justice in the working of this scheme. There are dangers in patronage, and there always will be. But the suggested committee will be some safeguard because the matter will be above board. I think this a useful method of breaking down some of the failures and shortcomings of the past, provided it is regarded as temporary and transitional
  My colleagues and I on this bench will operate a free vote tonight. [Laughter.]
  1354
  The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) laughs, but I wish that his party had followed the same course. No doubt he wishes that as much as I do. There were times when the hon. Member's party felt differently, and they may well find that that occurs again. I hope that the Government will go out of their way to indicate that these are temporary measures. It is amazing that agreement has been reached on what are pretty drastic reforms of another place, whether we agree with them all in detail or not.
  On that basis I support the White Paper, but I hope that it will not be many years before we in this House are asked to shed our powers as Parliament becomes a federal Parliament, to shed many of our responsibilities to domestic Parliaments and to see the second Chamber as a forum in which opinions of the nations and regions of this country can be properly represented.
  6.15 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Pannell: I listened with interest to the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), Leader of the Liberal Party. I congratulate him on the assembly on his bench. It was almost 100 per cent., a degree of loyalty which I found really touching; but I regret that he spent so much time dealing with what I call the small change arguments.
  The right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) made the most powerful speech in favour of the White Paper proposals which I have heard. When merely in a parenthesis he referred to the Liberal Party, saying that he thought it was rather over-represented in the Lords, as it is, or will be, and was rather over-represented at the all-party talks, as it was, it seemed rather ungracious for the right hon. Member for Devon, North to harp on those points. I gathered that at the end of the day the right hon. Gentleman will lead his flock into the Lobby in favour of the White Paper.
  Mr. Thorpe: No, I said that we are to have a free vote.
  Mr. Pannell: The right hon. Gentleman said there would be a free vote, but they all turned up to hear him and came as the faithful to be fed.

  1355
  I am in favour of a bicameral legislature. I recognise that the House of Lords is a great repository of past public service. I suppose that if they had a motto inscribed on a coat of arms it would be of a backward-looking assembly—"Fing's a'int what they used to be". One of the things which has been creeping through the speeches which I find more than I can take, even from this side of the House, is the suggestion that as the Lords get better we get worse. There is a general suggestion that this House counts for rather less than it used to; that we are lesser men than our fathers were. I entirely reject that. Of course the Lords must get better, whatever happens.
  I looked up Henry Herbert Asquith's letters and read the diary for 26th March, 1925. It said:
  "We had a rather scrambling debate in the Lords yesterday about a Second Chamber, in the course of which I gave tongue for a few minutes. The standard of speaking there is deplorably low: men like…and…would hardly be listened to in an average county council. They mumble away a lot of spineless and disconnected platitudes."
  That was the House of Lords in those days. I must not refer to what happens in another place in this Session, except—to keep within the rules of order—to say that they are better than that. I do not intend to denigrate personalities in the House of Lords, because one recognises that many great men are there.
  I even detected in the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Sir Dingle Foot) that he thought Parliament was slipping. If we take any of the authorities and any of the great literary figures, Pepys, Hazlitt, Dickens, Stevenson or Carlyle, we find they have all spoken with utter contempt about this place in their generation. [An HON. MEMBER: "That was the last generation."] That was always the last generation and it was the high place from which they have fallen. We find Hartley Shawcross was writing letters to The Times in 1953 saying that no one of any worth had come to the House of Commons since 1945, which was the year when he entered this House, and by that time the House had changed by over 300 Members.
  I need refer to only one great advocate, my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport.
  1356
  He was a national football referee. More people hung on his decisions every weekend than on anything said by Sir Hartley. We have had an Education Act since 1870 and now more people want to sit in this House. There are no Latin tags nowadays, thank goodness, but more common sense, and the quality of those who want to come to either side of the House is as high as it ever was. Anyone can see that from the applicants for selection. Some have decided when they got here that it was not for them, they had not sufficient "fire in their bellies", but one is moved by the number of worth-while people to whom membership of this House is still a considerable honour. We are not the judges of our cause in this. But we are not to be judged either by the protestations of disappointed applicants. We are not to be misjudged or judged by those T.V. personalities who are simple-minded persons and want simple answers to every complex question.
  Turning to the White Paper, I believe that if we take the test of the Labour Party election address it has to be an imposed settlement and not an agreed one. That is where the mistake started. The Labour Party at the last election called for the curtailing of the delaying power of the Lords. It did not postulate agreement with the Lords. That was the starting point. If we took away the delaying powers altogether, we should get a new mutual respect between the two Chambers. Their Lordships would amend and ask the House of Commons to consider again, and, with no delaying power between us, we should probably be more content to look at such things on their merits. Away from the threat of delays, Lords' Amendments could be considered as they deserve to be. In my view six months' delay is an absolutely major mistake.
  The starting point in all this is to say to their Lordships, "You are not the sort of people to overturn the will of the House of Commons which is reflected by legislation." This is the crux of the matter. Everything comes from it. The White Paper is an invitation to their Lordships to be awkward and to use their powers so many times a Session to justify their salaries. Lord Mancroft has been mentioned in parenthesis. He

  1357
  is rather a brash person to those who have heard him speak on television and after dinner. But he speaks out loud what other people think. It is no use saying he speaks out loud what other people think. It is no use saying that their Lordships will not do this. It is no good the right hon. Member for Enfield, West working out statistics about what numbers will require them to do this. The statistic that he left out is that if one-third of them do not turn up or if they turn up at the rate of one in three as they are expected to do, that will defy any statistical analysis.
  This is what the legislation is for. This is why we are reconstituting the House of Lords. The House of Lords is invited to be awkward. It was an example of that curious contradiction when, in an outstanding speech by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) yesterday, he pointed out that we put one construction to ensure that the Government do not get power and then another construction to ensure that they get their way. This is a curious matter. I think that their Lordships are paid to put in an appearance in order to be pugnacious.
  There is another mistake that the negotiators made. It is a profound one. I am in a better position to speak about this than most people because I have had some experience of it. The mistakes that the negotiators made was in thinking that the set-up in the House of Lords is a party political one. It is not. It is an Establishment set-up. Our negotiators went in presumably believing that they were dealing with party political colleagues. They were not. The Lords are the Establishment who always come together in defence of their own. The one thing that one detects in all these curious negotiations is what one finds in all negotations where the parties are locked in for a long time. I have found it in the trade union world. They come to fall in love with what they are doing. I think that the Secretary of State for Social Services has fallen in love with the White Paper.
  I would refer to my own experience. I was charged by the Prime Minister to try to take the Palace of Westminster into public ownership in 1964. It took
  1358
  five or six weeks to clear all the hurdles out of the way up to the very summit. But we got a settlement only the following March, and it was an emasculated settlement, not the sort of thing I should have wanted, though I think most of my colleagues would agree that it was a great advance on what we had. Why was that? It was because the Longfords, the Gardiners, the Dilhornes and the Carringtons all muscled in together and would have died in the last ditch for the Lord Great Chamberlain. They all came together. This is what has happened here. If one thinks of the members of the Labour movement rallying together, they should take a lesson from what their Lordships did.
  Their Lordships could not tolerate the prospect of the over-lordship of the Minister of Public Building and Works, which was what it meant. Yet the whole sense of the Parliamentary party was behind me, because at that time we were only guests here at the caprice of Her Majesty. Anybody who has been here as long as I have knows full well the conditions under which we worked in those years. This was the only place to which I had ever been elected where the officials counted more than the officially elected. We ought to think very deeply about this. We are running into another Establishment rally in defence of the Lords.
  I stress that, because it is the background to all the conversations. We want to understand what we are doing. This should have been the sticking point for doing away with the delaying period altogether. But their Lordships have great charm and great persuasive powers. This was an aristocratic embrace.
  I am not in favour of elected peers. That would be a challenge to the paramountcy of this place. It was the first sticking point of the late Hugh Gaitskell, whose prescience in this matter I always admired. I believe that there should be a different sort of assembly altogether. There should be no form of election. If we have a form of election, those elected will draw their power not from the House of Lords but from the people whom they represent. We shall then have company directors and representatives of the livery companies, representing people who will claim to be of a greater quality for their vote than the electors of Leeds, West or

  1359
  Ebbw Vale. We should be challenging the sovereign will of the people. "One man, one vote; one woman, one vote; and all votes of one value" was not won in this country until 1950 with the abolition of the university franchise. We must not depart from that now. We had better have nomination and all the patronage that it brings. One can talk about patronage for a Prime Minister and patronage for a Leader of the Opposition. That is not exactly what we are objecting to. What we are objecting to is patronage plus patrimony.
  It is linked to a salary. If we go on with the idea of giving peers the status of a salary there will soon come the next step of pensions for impecunious peers. The figure of £2,000 a year has been mentioned. I realise that this will have to go to be considered by a Committee. But one should remember the opposition of the Establishment, the quality newspapers and leaders in The Times every time Members of the House of Commons have tried to raise their salary from the £600 a year that it was in 1945. I happen to believe an expense allowance would meet the needs of the Peers. The argument against it is that it would benefit the rather more wealthy. I do not accept that. The £2,000 a year would have Income Tax and other expenses set off against it. I think that we would get over that difficulty.
  How do we deal with the peers? The right hon. Member for Enfield, West posed a dilemma. He said that this was a package scheme which had the merit of support by both Front Benches and of the Liberal Party—bless it—and even the Law Lords. He said that the alternative was a split. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) says, "Do away with the place". The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, says, "Leave well alone".
  One is, therefore, called upon to say what one would do. I would abolish hereditary titles. There would be no more of them. I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services when he suggests that the creation of titles is apart from the White Paper, that it is a matter for the Royal Prerogative. I believe that we had better deal with titles while we have
  1360
  this opportunity. We should take this chance of doing away with all the sycophancy which surrounds the Court and the Throne. If we must have peers, let them be life peers, created on their own merit.
  Having done that, I would have a steady build-up of the life peerage as the hereditary peers died out. I would give the life peers a suitable expenses allowance. Then I think that I would allow the House of Lords to reform itself, as it has already started to do by asking people to say whether they will attend. The other place could bring down its numbers to any it liked. If we allowed the Lords to do this in conjunction with the removal of their delaying power, we might then leave well alone.
  Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will ponder on another question. What will be the position under the Peerage Act, 1963? That mainly arose out of the situation in which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology found himself. There is, however, much confusion. For example, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) wants to know about the Scottish peers. The idea of the Act was to stop people from hopping from one House to another and then back. It laid down that, if a man renounced his peerage, he could not return to the Lords later. What would the position be in relation to the Act under these proposals?
  I have tried to keep my speech short. If I did not address the House yesterday it was because that I apprehended that at least two other Privy Councillors wanted to speak and I know the sensitivity of my colleagues on matters such as that. I always have a self-denying ordinance about it.
  My speech if I had made it yesterday would have indicated that I am generally in favour of the Amendment. Yet I would have found in my postbag this morning a three-line Whip. What sort of people do they think they are to issue a three-line Whip in the middle of a debate? I am not that sort of craven person. I feel insulted that I should have been so misjudged. I must say something to the "powers that be" in my party. It will go for many of my right hon. and hon. Friends as well, and I am choosing my words very carefully.

  1361
  In 19 years in this House, although I had some part in drawing up the "conscience" clause, I have never used it to abstain from voting for my party. On economic policy, I will always support the Government because I believe, particularly after having been a Minister, that they have access to information not available to me and that their judgment is often reinforced by things that I cannot know. But not on this subject. I have given this subject rather more study than the Government have.
  Some West Point cadets were once being lectured by a general. Looking around the hall, he said: "Probably half a dozen people in the United States know this subject rather better than I do. I do not see them in front of me." Perhaps my right hon. Friends take an interest in this subject, but there is no particular inside information on the esoteric mysteries of the peerage which I do not know better from my experience than those who wish to lecture me today.
  In this House in 1914 there was a terrible row on the Tory benches and Mr. Speaker could not get order. There was a hullaballoo for over an hour. Mr. Speaker Lowther impatiently turned to the Leader of the Conservative Party, Mr. Bonar Law, and said:
  "Hon. Members seem determined not to hear their Leader."—
  that was the Leader of the House—
  "I would ask the Leader of the Opposition whether that is with his assent and approval—"
  Mr. Bonar Law answered:
  "I would not presume to criticise what you consider your duty, Sir, but I know mine, and that is not to answer any such question."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st May, 1914; Vol. LXII, c. 2214.]
  I know my duty tonight. It is not to accede to that Whip.
  6.36 p.m.
  Sir Lionel Heald: I hope to be brief, because I know what a privilege it is to speak in this debate and that many right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak. It is also a responsibility that one should discharge in the circumstances that have arisen. It is a debate of great importance—perhaps as important as any we have had in the last 20 years. Why? Because it affects back benchers to a very great extent, and the position of
  1362
  back benchers is of vital importance to the House.
  Between us on this White Paper there are sharp differences of opinion on party lines. There has been Front Bench agreement upon several aspects. But almost everyone who has spoken has referred to Parliament as a whole and not simply to this House. He has directed himself to the effect of the White Paper on Parliament as a whole, on Parliament as one of our great British institutions, which every one of us has a duty to our constituents to maintain and improve.
  I believe that almost everyone who has spoken has adopted this attitude. There is strong feeling in the House at this moment that the Government have had, in considering these proposals, far too much in mind the strengthening of the hold of the Executive in this House. Member after Member has spoken of it. I have heard all the speeches except one and I have been immensely struck by the seriousness with which that view has been expressed, quite outside party lines. Let us test that. In the last resort, under this White Paper, it will be the Government's nominees, whatever party is in power, who will decide whether the country is to be given more time to be fully acquainted with some issue of great importance but which has not been fully canvassed and public opinion, as a result, to crystallise.
  I came here yesterday with an open mind, but after hearing the speech of the Minister for Social Services I came to the conclusion that I could not support the White Paper. He as good as admitted that he is still a single chamberite, just as he told us he was in the glorious days of the New Statesman, and he hinted—this is very important in relation to what the Leader of the Liberal Party said—that this is only the first step on the road. I think that it is the first step on the slippery slope to the abolition of the second Chamber.
  It is fair to say that even those who have strong feelings about the hereditary principle agree that it must be a matter of serious consideration before we abolish the second Chamber, because we have something which is admired all over the world, an unwritten constitution, which makes it even more essential

  1363
  that there should be safeguards against the possibility—and in certain circumstances it may be much more than a possibility—of a simple Bill being introduced, bringing about vast changes.
  I wish to put on record one statement on the delaying aspect which is of vital importance because not much has been said on this subject. These are the words of Sir Anthony Eden as reported in the Agreed Statement of 1948:
  "It is an essential constitutional safeguard to ensure that, in the event of serious controversy between the two Houses of Parliament, on a measure on which the view of the electorate is doubtful, such a measure shall not pass into law until sufficient time has elapsed to enable the electorate to be properly informed of the issues involved, and for public opinion to crystallise and express itself."
  Later he said that,
  "in a country like Great Britain where there is an unwritten Constitution and fundamental changes can easily be made",
  it is vital that safeguards should be provided.
  What is the safeguard proposed in the White Paper? The only real safeguard which has been suggested is the remarkable invention of the cross bench peers. I will not go into detail on this matter because a lot has been said about it, but I would not for a moment agree with some of the derogatory things which have been said, although I do not think that they were said very seriously, because we all know some of the people involved. But this puts them in an impossible position. We were told that it was probable that perhaps only ten of them would be available when the crisis arose. Who will they be? This is like the famous Philosopher Kings of Plato—although in this case it may be a question of Queens—as his ideal of the people who should rule the State. I do not believe that this is a safeguard which will operate. It is a fanciful thing. It is almost a bit of "Crossmania".
  There is what I consider to be another very serious flaw and danger, namely, the preventing of the second Chamber from considering any matter relating to subordinate legislation—delegated legislation. I hope that hon. Members opposite will follow this point because we are talking about a state of affairs in which there may be any kind of Government.
  1364
  It may be an extreme Government of the Left or of the Right. The present tendency in this House is to make the effective matter a Minister's order and not the Act which gives the Minister the power. The result of this White Paper will be that there will be no opportunity of challenging an order made by a Minister on a most vital subject. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) got no answer, and I have no answer, because there is none. Hon. Members should realise that that may not be an accident. We had the remarkable statement from the Leader of the Liberal Party—I do not know what ground he had for making it—that he thought that it was only a preliminary. It is a very dangerous preliminary.
  We are now told that this matter is to be passed into law this Session, despite the fact that this sentence appears in the Gracious Speech:
  "My Government will begin consultations on the appointment of a Commission on the constitution".
  The word "constitution" has a small "c", which shows what some people think of the importance of the Constitution. It was not a misprint. No newspaper published the word with a small "c", but the Government did. If there is to be consultation on the appointment of a Commission on the Constitution, is it not remarkable that it will not be dealing with Parliament itself, which we in this House think is the most important part of the Constitution? This is strange, and it is one of the most serious objections of all.
  I say no more about the position of back benchers, which has been clearly stated. But I do say with all sense of responsibility and without any desire to be anything but completely courteous that we must bear in mind that those personages who agreed this draft are not back benchers. My right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) has not been a back bencher for 20 years. He was a Minister for many years, and since then—but for a brief interval—he has been a shadow Minister. Sometimes I do not think that people in that position quite appreciate what back bench Members feel about these matters.

  1365
  It happens, not altogether by coincidence, that an event has taken place today about which we have heard from several hon. Members opposite which perhaps reinforces the belief that the Government's view of back benchers is not all that we would wish it to be. I remind the House of a famous remark made by Sir Winston Churchill when he was told that a right hon. Member of great eminence, who I believe has been mentioned in this debate, had said, "We are the masters now." Sir Winston replied, "If I am again entrusted with power, I shall tell the country, 'Ladies and gentlemen, we are your servants' ".
  6.50 p.m.
  Mr. John Mendelson: The right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) was very much afraid that this would be only a temporary measure, if the House gave its approval, or if the Government were sufficiently ill-advised to introduce a Bill. My fear is from the opposite direction. My fear is that once these proposals are enacted no government for many years will want to go through all this again in a hurry and we shall be saddled with these absurd proposals for more years than the right hon. and learned Gentleman envisaged. It is precisely on those grounds that I am opposed to this White Paper. In the end, I think, this will turn out to be an historic debate, because many of the assumptions and prejudices concerning the other place have been brought into focus for the first time in many years. It will also turn out to be a very important day for the House of Commons.
  I have listened over many years, not only in this House but in the other place, and sometimes at university seminars, to the mythology about the quality of debate in the House of Lords being so much more superior to the quality of debate in the House of Commons. I have always believed this to be nonsense. Anyone who listened to the first two and a half hours of the debate here yesterday—the quality, the sparkle, the seriousness, the information, the knowledge—would have realised, if he had gone over to the other place later in the evening as I did to listen for some hours to the debate there, how much nonsense these statements and assessments are. The sixth form essays, the rehearsing of
  1366
  leading articles written between 1914 and 1954, which take the place of debate in the other place show that these assumptions are mistaken.
  There was one dangerous element in this mythology, which is directly relevant to these proposals, because when one presses well-meaning people to say why they have this absurd assumption that the quality of debate is much higher in the other place they often say, "It is because they are independent, because they do not have a constituency, because they do not have to deal in the small change of democracy and democratic politics". That is the most dangerous reasoning underlying this absurd assumption. It is the continuation of this underlying reasoning into the new Chamber to which I am so much opposed.
  We had it from a man of such high and established intelligence as the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), who gave us his absurd analysis of cross-benchers today. Of course, he was a member of the team that worked out the proposals. I was amazed to hear him in all seriousness say in the House of Commons of all places—after all these years of establishing the right of democratically elected Members of this place to decide at all times, including time and delay, what ought to happen in our public affairs—that it was right for us to hand over to these cross-benchers the power of decision because they include people as eminent and high-minded as former field marshals, colonial governors, eminent retired civil servants, and what-have-you. What an absurd argument for a man of the right hon. Gentleman's democratic conscience and high intelligence! He was driven to it because he was presenting a case that cannot be supported or defended.
  At this stage, the main thing is not to continue to try to shoot holes into the proposals, because that has been done sufficiently already. Hon. Members on the Front Bench who have to deal with this matter, and my right hon. Friend who is to reply to the debate, probably envisaged some of them before the debate ever started. What matters much more is to concentrate on the new position which has arisen during the

  1367
  debate and the new information and attitudes that have emerged.
  I turn, therefore, to what I consider to be the overriding danger in these proposals. That is not the increase in patronage, which I think will be inevitable. That is important, but not the most important for me. The most important concerns the powers of the other place, after the reform has been accepted and carried through. Here we have a remarkable contrast in what the House has been told by two senior members of the Government who have spoken from the Front Bench so far. I am not original in pointing this out. The right hon. Member for Enfield, West did so a few hours ago. I spotted this yesterday, hence my frequent interruptions when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services was speaking, and when the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) was speaking.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services had an overriding responsibility in his previous capacity in the negotiations and is not a man who does not state his opinions. I do not agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), that the characteristic he attributed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social services did justice to him. I have, over the same number of years, greatly respected my right hon. Friend. I believe that he has made great contributions to our constitutional and political thinking, and I believe that his determination to think of new ideas, to argue with people forcibly and accept some of their arguments, perhaps the next day, is a virtue rather than anything else. He, not being afraid to state his opinions, said this in the House yesterday, replying to an intervention I had made on the subject of powers:
  "This is exactly what I said. If we institute a reformed House it is ridiculous not to recognise that it will use the powers given to it, and have the authority to do so, and therefore, it should be given no power which it is not prepared to use."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th November, 1968; Vol. 773, c. 1134.]
  That is a clear, determined statement. But what did we have from my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General today? The exact opposite. He was at great pains to persuade the House
  1368
  that it should not vote for the Amendment but should go into the other Lobby; at great pains to tell us that in his judgment the other place would not use these powers or they would use them so rarely as made no difference to the House of Commons and to the course of democratic politics. Both cannot be right. It is of great interest that the right hon. Member for Enfield, West immediately perceived the weakness of this position and said that he was siding with my right hon. and learned Friend.
  I therefore turn to the one member of the Lords we have so far heard. I do not brush aside Lord Mancroft. I feel that I have no right to do so. I do not know him personally, I do not know whether he speaks for very many. What I do know is that he has spoken publicly on this matter and that he is an active Member of the other place, who frequently takes part in debates and in the councils of his party. He is therefore not to be regarded a priori as unreoresentative in what he said. He said that the great weakness of the other Chamber, whatever powers they nominally have—and he returned to the point three times in 25 minutes—the great weakness had always been that they have all these powers but could never use them. He did not say they could never use them because of what the House of Commons could subsequently do to them, but he said they could never use them because they were not credible, as an assembly, to the country at large, to the British people. That is the key point.
  It is common ground that the powers that rest in this House are always as large as the backing of the British people. They are never larger, and they are never less. That is why I take with considerable resistance all this talk about the decline of the power and standing of Parliament. One has only to read Punch in the 1830s, 1840s and 1850s to know what real contempt and real derision mean. There is none of that today. A reading of our history enables one to say with humility that the British people are quite capable of being severely critical of their Parliamentary assembly, because it is their own and they have a right to criticise it, and at the same time to regard it both as a residuum of power and as a residuum of freedom. That is the attitude of a democratic people.

  1369
  All these Ph.Ds and other academic friends of mine who seem to discover every 50 years or so that the House of Commons is going downhill and that the Constitution gives a strong position to the Executive should tell the public and their publishers that all that was said as long ago as by Montesquieu and that they are merely rehashing it.
  That being so, what Lord Man croft said is significant. The inner secret of the impotence of the other place has always been the fact that they are not credible to the public. That is why I have concentrated so much on this point. That is now to be changed, if these proposals are accepted. There is no question about that. It was the buying price.
  Why did the right hon. Member for Enfield, West make the best speech of the debate so far? I do not want to say anything about my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who has yet to speak. Of his capacity we all know. In the debate so far the best case for these proposals was undoubtedly made by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West. He gave us part of the reason. He said, "Many of my friends in the House of Lords want these changes". Of course they do. That is the reason—the right hon. Gentleman has a direct interest in wanting to bring this about. As regards Conservative Members in the Lords, he has a representative interest. He is prepared to lose the support of some of the others who do not play a very active part in the other place, anyway, but he is supporting those who have done and who will. A Member makes the best speeches when he is convinced of what he is saying, not when he is putting forward a wooden analysis.
  That being so, ipso facto, as it was the buying price, it is a price that our side should never have accepted in these negotiations. There was hope of better things, because when the Rhodesia Order was introduced into the other place and was defeated there, it was reported by reputable journalists whose word I have no reason to doubt that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was determined to bring in a short Bill and to abolish the remaining delaying powers of the other place.
  I only wish to heaven that he had done so, because that is all that was required.
  1370
  That is all that we had been campaigning for. However, I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services and a gentleman who has not so far been mentioned today but who is very influential in these matters—the noble Lord, the Lord Chancellor—prevailed upon the Prime Minister in long arguments not to proceed with that proposal and convinced him in the end that he had over-persuaded himself of the case for that.
  I am not surprised that this was so, because I have firmly believed, and I believe today, that underneath all the thick layers of pragmatism that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has accumulated in recent years there lives a real radical who at times still wants to come out. This was one of those occasions.
  Those who have been involved in these negotiations—the fixers, to use a not too respectable term—were so enamoured with their own product and thought that they had such clever political reasons, to one of which I will come later, that they prevailed upon my right hon. Friend not to bring in that short Measure, which would not have been an agreed Measure; it would have been fiercely opposed by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West, but it would have been carried through in the usual manner by the democratic majority of the House of Commons, reducing further the powers of the House of Lords. It would have been a worth-while reform.
  That is no reason as to why there should not be a revising Chamber. This is my answer to the right hon. Member for Enfield, West, who maintained that those of us who are opposed to these proposals must show that we have thought about the matter and that we can conceive of a kind of second/first Chamber relationship which does not involve these proposals.
  There is no reason why there should not be a revising Chamber which does a number of the useful jobs that the revising Chamber should do, without having the power to delay the wishes of the first Chamber. There is no reason in logic. There is no reason in democratic political doctrine. There is no reason whatsoever. Only those who wish to have a built-in anti-democratic power

  1371
  in the other place as a continued check on the "unreason" of the democratically elected representatives of the House of Commons can wish for any such delaying powers.
  I do not accuse my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services or my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General of sharing this view. I felt that they wanted agreement and were prepared to accept this residum of anti-democratic doctrine, which is wholly unnecessary and for no good reason. In doing so they refused to listen to the voices in their own party. This is a classic example of some of our leaders, having started upon a course of trying to find an agreed "coalition government" solution with the leading members of the Opposition Front Bench, holding agreement with them to be much more important than agreement and unity within their own ranks.
  As there is to be a vote tonight, let me put this on the record. There has been no real consultation with the members of the Parliamentary Labour Party. Last night a senior colleague in the Parliamentary Party said to me, "When we had the meeting in the Parliamentary Party the White Paper was already ready. There is no question of our influencing policy in the debate held there. It was a matter of form, something to be gone through, something to put on the record. " Regardless of the fact that at that meeting of the Parliamentary Party only one speaker from the floor supported these proposals, the Government proceeded to publish the White Paper within a few days. This is an example of anti-democratic politics in support of an anti-democratic set of proposals.
  The only remaining two points that I wish to make concern the question of patronage, which, although it is not the main reason for my objection, must not be left unmentioned by anybody who takes part in this debate. I am sorry that the Leader of the Liberal Party is not in his place. He left rather abruptly. Having entertained us for as long as 40 minutes, I think that he should have spent a longer time listening to some of the other contributions.
  I thought that the Leader of the Liberal Party showed himself to be extremely touchy at the references made
  1372
  by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West. At first I could not understand the touchiness of the right hon. Gentleman. After all, we have all at times been criticised by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West. Speaking for myself, I would much rather be criticised by a man of intellectual substance such as the right hon. Member for Enfield, West than by many other people.
  Yet the Leader of the Liberal Party was very touchy. Then I saw how obvious it was. This is the beginning of the danger of increasing patronage, which is what is being done here. The right hon. Member for Enfield, West touched on a neuralgic point of the Leader of the Liberal Party, who is under these proposals to be elevated as one of the three who are to make the nominations. If it were proved in this House that the number of elevations that are to be given to the Leader of the Liberal Party and his political friends is far too high, that is a matter that he does not wish to be discussed. Hence his exaggerated reaction to what I thought were perfectly normal and legitimate political comments made by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West. In fact, in economic debates the right hon. Member for Enfield, West is much sharper in attacking us than he was in anything he said this afternoon.
  We began to see the danger. It is no use my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services talking in terms of numbers. That has nothing to do with it. It does not matter whether the number is 80 or 46 or 88. Leaving the salary question aside for a moment, until now people have had to weigh whether they wished to join another place which, in the words of Lord Man croft, was not credible to the British people; or did they wish to stay there without being able to exercise proper political power? If these proposals are accepted, that will change and much more importance will be attached to being translated to another place. In the years to come, and with the mythology which I have described about the quality of debates in another place, with the exercise of a certain amount of power there will be many people only too eager to go to another place.
  It does not matter what is said about £2,000. If the Committee is to make an

  1373
  assessment of requirements, the figure will not stay at £2,000. As the years go by, the figure will go well beyond that. We shall have set up an altogether different assembly, which is to oppose the Government at times—and according to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, it will be perfectly entitled to use its powers and should not be given these powers unless it will use them. It will be altogether a different chamber which in time will become credible to the people of this country. That will mean the introduction of an altogether new concept compared with that of the last 80 or 90 years. Many of the reforms which have been talked of in the past will be put into reserve.
  I turn to the occasion on which the power of delay might be used. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services was very keen about the limited effect of these powers, but in years gone by he was one of those who pointed out that if the House of Lords, as composed at present, used its delaying power, then, depending upon the timetable of the Government, it did not matter that the period was only six months for the whole of the legislative plans and political purposes of the Government might be destroyed for two years or two-and-a-half years. It is therefore wholly academic to consider only the period of six months. It matters what are the subjects under debate, what is the political position and what is the kind of legislation which another place might destroy or delay, or destroy by delaying.
  Let us take the recent Transport Bill, which links with the final argument used by my right hon. Friend in recent weeks, according to The Times—an argument not so far mentioned in the debate. It is clear that in the matter of transport there are involved the drivers who want to drive at more than 70 m.p.h. and the people who have an exaggerated view about their prowess under drink—large numbers of people who are not particularly involved in party political warfare. Who knows what the consensus would be in a matter of transport and what some of the appointees whom the Prime Minister sent there would say? Nobody knows on such a subject. All that is an unknown quantity and an unknown coalition.
  1374
  It is well known that if the House had wrecked that Transport Bill it would have created very serious concerns in the minds of Ministers. That could be repeated by a delay of six months. What prevented the Lords from doing that was the fact that in Lord Man croft's words, they are not a credible assembly to the people of this country.
  I come to a point which, according to The Times, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is reported to have made as to why he believes that he ought to support and commend these proposals. He is reported to have said that if these agreed proposals are not now introduced and passed, the Government's legislative programme for the remainder of this Parliament would be in jeopardy because the Members of another place might move against it in order to wreck it. That is strange reasoning—that we should agree to a reform which is indefensible and absurd in many other respects on the ground that if we do not now have the agreed solution, the other place, which we are to reform, might wreck the Government's legislation in the last two years of this Parliament.
  If the proposals are good in themselves, they ought to stand by themselves. The House is asked to legislate for a long time. My right hon. Friend's argument is faulty, because if the other place is in fact threatening to exercise this power in the remaining two years—if there is evidence to that effect, and I know of none—then the way to deal with it would be the way in which the Prime Minister wanted to deal with it after the rejection of the Order concerning Rhodesia—to bring in a short Bill and to remove all the delaying powers from another place.
  That is the proper course which my right hon. Friends ought to adopt. They ought to listen to the debate and to recognise that there is no support for these absurd proposals. After what has happened tonight, they ought to leave well alone. They ought not to introduce the Bill. But if there is danger of serious wrecking trouble from the other place, they ought then to introduce a short Bill taking away their power altogether.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that I have appealed for reasonably brief speeches.
  7.16 p.m.
  Mr. T. L. Iremonger: I hope that the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) will forgive me if I do not comment on his argument. I would disagree with him in detail, but as he is on our side in being against the proposals, I do not want to muddy the waters.
  I have listened to every minute of this debate with the exception of one or two minutes when I lapsed into total unconciousness—at a time which it would be uncharitable to identify too closely. I have found it one of the most splendid and most terrible debates to which I have listened. I have never been more proud of being a Member of the House of Commons and I have never been more ashamed of it. I was proud to be a Member when I listened to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer)—if he will not take it too hardly that I say so—the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell) and other hon. Members. They spoke as hon. Members of the House should speak.
  When the arguments on the merits of the White Paper have been so exhaustively canvassed, the point which remains to be made is that which was made by the two right hon. Gentlemen. It is shameful that on such a constitutional issue such a Whip has been imposed. The House is being asked merely to take note of a matter about which we may legislate for future generations. Because of views, unpartisan and expressed with the profoundest emotion, from different motives, but which threaten the attitude which Ministers want their hon. Friends to take—because those views do not suit the Government—then, in the middle of it all, a degrading order is sent out—and I hope that there are enough men in the House to defy that order.
  The gravamen of the charge against the proposal is seen in its most terrifying aspect in the light of what the hon. Member for Walton said, for, if the other place were created as it would be under these proposals, with all the temptations for the future, which could be held out to hon. Members, then, if that Whip were then sent out, it would be a great deal harder to defy than will be the case
  1376
  tonight. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) made the point very well when he said succinctly that, whether or not these proposals would create a good House of Lords, they would create a poor House of Commons. I hope, therefore, that when it comes to the vote there will not be lacking hon. Members from both sides of the House to chuck this out; because I think, personally, though hon. Member have different views, and perfectly legitimately differing views on this and different reasons for holding them, that these proposals are bad.
  They have been piercingly dissected and brilliantly illumined in a series of powerful speeches against the White Paper, but nothing that has been said in this debate against the White Paper has turned me up and turned me against it so much as what has been said in favour of it by the Front Benchers opposite—and, with all respect, I was not entirely persuaded by my two right hon. Friends.
  I think it was my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) who made the point that these proposals were not made by Members of Parliament, so much as by members of Governments past and present. This is not a Parliamentary proposal at all. This is an anti-Parliamentary proposal. I ventured, I hope not too presumptously, to put on the Paper what I thought was the prime objection to these proposals, that they tend to increase the power of the Executive.
  It would be otiose for me at this stage in the debate to explain exactly why, but they tend to conform to the whole tenor of what the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Social Services, whose brilliant intellect we all admire, really means, I think, when he talks about "Parliamentary reform". What he means is turning this place into an elected bureaucracy. What he means is turning this place into an instrument of Government. Which it has never been and never should be. It is not what it is for. Its constitutional purpose is the opposite.
  I am in favour of Parliament; I am in favour of this place, an elected Chamber; I am also in favour of a second Chamber. I have never been absolutely convinced

  1377
  that democracy, whatever it may mean, means that counting noses is the only way of establishing what is right and what is wise. It may be that hon. Members will differ from me on this. But I want a second Chamber and I want a powerful second Chamber and I want a second Chamber which will be able to vindicate the use of its powers, and therefore, as Lord Man croft said and notwithstanding what the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) said, for perfectly genuine reasons I want it to be constituted in a way which will command the confidence of the country.
  It has been said by right hon. and hon. Members that it is not incumbent upon us who reject this White Paper to present an alternative. I agree. I think we weaken our case by trying to do so, because every alternative can be objected to. I am concerned mainly to object to this White Paper. But, if anyone wants to know why, let me explain: I think the principles of selection or appointment of a second Chamber should be examined. Briefly, there are three sources from which the second Chamber can come. One is the Almighty, and that is the Instrument we are using at the moment, apart from slight assistance by the Front Benches from time to time. On the whole, I would say that He had, over the four or five centuries of exercising His power, got a fair pass mark on it. I would say that the most appropriate comment upon the workings of the hereditary principle is what the Somerset farm labourers said about the cider given to them by the fanner at harvest time. They said, "It is just all right". When asked what they meant by "just all right", they said, "If it had been any worse we would not have drunk it; and if it had been any better we would not have got it. " That, I think, is just about what we have got from the Almighty in the House of Lords.
  Another way, of course, is to select by lottery. That is not without historic precedent. Hon. Members will know Xenophon was elected by lottery and led the Greek Army back from Persia very successfully—much more successfully than Napoleon led his from Moscow, and he was not elected by lottery. After all, I am not so sure that heredity is not a lottery anyway, because, if it is to be arranged on any more scientific basis than a lottery, it has got to bring
  1378
  into play the benign operation of incest which, I think, on the whole, would be regarded as slightly unorthodox in the peerage.
  Another way, of course, of getting a second Chamber is by the patronage of the Front Benches. That is what is proposed. Everyone has assumed that this means the patronage of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. It is not just them. It is the Patronage Secretaries on both sides. They have enormous power which is, perhaps, acceptable, to some degree, but I am not so sure that this House wants to have all that much more of it for ever.
  The final way is some form of election. I would opt for some form of election, indirect, by interests rather than by geographical constituencies, but, for heaven's sake, may I suggest that we do not spoil our case against the White Paper by getting involved in intra-opposition arguments about the merits of one scheme or another. I am sure we could do better than this. And I am sure we could not do worse. And if we are to do no worse, we might put up with what we have got now, incredible as it is.
  I am anxious not to detain the House and so I should like, finally, just to identify two phrases which appear in the White Paper and which seem to me so perfectly to illustrate the fundamental, underlying, constitutionally odious heresy which inspires the whole thinking behind this proposal. On page 1, in paragraph 4 (d) comes the phrase,
  "once the reform has been completed the work of the two Houses should become more closely co-ordinated and integrated".
  That is a constitutional indecency. The function of the second House, if it is to have any function at all, is not to be co-ordinated with this one. It is the very opposite. I believe in this House—one side of it, at any rate—but I am not prepared to say, even when my side of the House is in "power", as we so offensively call it, that it will necessarily be always absolutely right in the last year of a Parliament. And I do not want to "co-ordinate", and compound error, by having a lot of stooges up there in the other House saying, "Hear, hear! Quite right!". I want there to be a balance, and for them to be able to say, "No: you are quite wrong". The

  1379
  worst they can do, if the Government do not like it, is to precipitate a General Election. If the Government will not tolerate the delaying powers being used they have the perfectly simple recourse of going to the country and renewing their mandate from the electorate and getting their Bill in the quickest possible time.
  The second offensive phrase which so perfectly illustrates the heresy which is the main objection to this White Paper is in page 33, in Appendix II, where it commends the general idea as being
  "A substantial contribution towards improving the legislative process".
  There is one other beauty which occurs in paragraph 70 on page 27:
  "improving the efficiency of Parliament…"
  This is the heresy. This place is not meant to be "efficient", in the concept of Government. This place has been established from time immemorial to be a confounded nuisance to Governments. I am ashamed at the timidity with which we accept the idea that we must have "efficiency', and trot upstairs with bulging briefcases and empty minds, helping the Government in dirty little committees, doing their dirty little work. That is not my idea of Parliament. The White Paper is obsessed with the "efficiency" of Parliament, but it really means the efficiency of Government and if anyone commends to me that we should take note of a White Paper to improve the efficiency of Government then I want to have no part of it. The House is entitled to its own view of its function and should have no part in that. The function of this House is to proclaim its opinion, having decided what are the choices between the evils that beset the nation in its historic pilgrimage onwards. We cannot do that if we are to be subordinated to the requirements of day-to-day administration and the expediencies of office—the difficulties of which we may understand.
  We should not shrink from change, but I hope that when we make a change we will make it with a proper awareness of the dignity, duty, nature, function and purpose of this House, which are not reflected in the White Paper. I honour the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite who have stood firm on this.
  1380
  I am sure that they will take no notice of the impertinence of the "guidance", if that is the word, that they have been given by their right hon. Friends. I hope that there will be enough hon. Members on both sides of the House to chuck this out. I am sure that, if we have regard to the interests of the country, of Parliament in general and of this House in particular, this is wrong.
  7.32 p.m.
  Mr. Cyril Bence: It is a sad reflection on the House of Commons that we should spend two days debating the retention or the reform of an institution which for 300 years has been completely discredited and is an anomaly in our Parliamentary system, when the newspapers today are full of the European crisis, in which the well-being and material, and perhaps spiritual and moral, standards of the people of Europe are being threatened by our failure to manage internationally the currencies of the nations of the world. We are spending two days in debating whether we shall sustain an institution which everyone has admitted dares not use the little power it has.
  I was amazed to read in the White Paper the assumptions of the present Labour Government. I was reminded that the late Lord Baldwin in 1934 or 1935, when he was Prime Minister, made the claim in a speech in, I think, Newport, South Wales, that "We are all Socialists now". On reading the White Paper I felt that the new cry from our Front Bench was that "We are all Conservatives now".
  After an election of candidates sponsored by the Labour Party and the trade unions, when within a few months there were revolts by 30 or 40 hon. Members, I am surprised that the Secretary of State for Social Services imagines that he can, on a declaration of intent, nominate someone to go to the other place not on licence but until he is 72, and expect the loyalty and probity to the Executive which cannot be obtained in this House although we are here on a five-year or perhaps a three-year licence.
  The presentation of the White Paper is untimely and the proposals do nothing to reform many of the powers of the other place. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, in

  1381
  opening his speech, spoke of being a don and a lecturer, and he used the phrase, "that other place" which was coined by Cromwell at the beginning of the Long Parliament. But as my right hon. Friend went on to speak about his reforms he did not refer to it as that other place but as the Upper House. If that is to be an Upper House, I presume this is the Lower House. There is a common expression that when an hon. Member is created a peer he is sent upstairs. I refuse to believe that morality and probity upstairs is higher than it is below stairs; in fact, it may not be as high. I have a natural resentment, coming as I do from a Puritan family, against the concept of an Upper House being wiser or having greater probity than the Lower House, and I am suspicious of granting powers to that House if in future it is to be not "that other place" but the "Upper House". There is an Act in the Library in that other place abolishing the House of Lords, and I think the best thing to do is to let it be abolished.
  The Queen's Commissioners in that other place have many powers which they have not used for a long time. The Commissioners were created by Henry VIII, as he did not wish to come to the House to say that he wanted Catharine Howard arraigned for treason for committing adultery with Culpepper. He therefore created the Commissioners. They were introduced again by George I, for the reason that he could not speak English. The Commissioners in 1675 refused to accept the duly elected Speaker of the House of Commons. The Queen's Commissioners are empowered to act in all things in the name of Her Majesty, but there is no suggestion in the White Paper that they should be abolished. The Commissioners are appointed by the Crown Office in consultation with the Lord Chancellor, and there are now five of them. I want to get rid of them. No one should have the power to refuse to accept the duly elected Speaker of the House of Commons. I am not suggesting that the power will be used, but it is there, and there is no suggestion that it should be removed.
  We on this side of the House have been chided for not having an alternative proposal. A Commission has been established to inquire into our present Constitution and to see how it can be evolved
  1382
  in order that Wales, Scotland and perhaps other regions may feel they are part of the political institution. Several Parliaments are envisaged. I do not see why we need several Chambers; one seems adequate to me. If the Commission reports on the desirability of a Scottish Parliament, a Welsh Parliament, or even a Yorkshire Parliament, the work of this Parliament will be reduced.
  What is there implicit in this document, especially in view of the rumours circulating about the salary? There are a hundred or more right hon. and hon. Members of this House who form the Executive, plus a few in the other place. Many appointments to the Government are made for all sorts of reasons. It may be to balance the forces. It may be that there are difficult people involved and one has to placate sections. Both Front Benches have to do it. A large percentage of hon. Members of this House are part time. Only about 300 of us are full-time Members. The rest are here for only part of the time, although they receive full pay. Because so many of our Members are part time, we have too much work to do. To solve the problem, is it seriously proposed that we should create another part-time institution in the other place?
  They work for about 135 days a year there. It is suggested that voting peers would be required to attend a third of the sittings, or 45, for which they should receive £2,000 a year. That is £50 a day, and they will be part-time. Imagine trying to run a business on the principle that, because half the staff works part time, double the staff is required. That is what is proposed. It is said that this House cannot cope with all its work. When the Commission reports, assuming that it recommends and we agree that another two Parliaments should be created, it is to be hoped that the three will be adequate.
  Frequently, we are accused of introducing too much legislation and that a great deal of work involving social justice and reform could be done by administrative action. It was said by Tom Johnston 40 years ago. He was right. We could do much more now.
  Since 1964, I have never voted against the Government, nor have I abstained, because I am not an abstainer. I believe in voting for or against them. Tonight,

  1383
  I am sorry to say, will be the first time, but it may not be the last. However, I cannot abstain and certainly I cannot support a Motion to take note of the White Paper. I must vote against it. I cannot agree to action being taken which is temporary. We are told that it is transitional. My right hon. Friend said that it is probable that it will have to be altered again in a few years' time when the result of the inquiry of the Commission on the Constitution is known. In my view, we should wait for that result and see what it is. Let us have a proposition then which can stand for a very long time.
  It has been said many times that the 1911 Act was to be a temporary one. That was 57 years ago. Is this to be another temporary Measure? We were returned in 1964 and again in 1966 to modernise Britain, yet we spend two days trying to shore up an ancient monument.
  The people of this country and the rest of the world think it a fine spectacle when Parliament is opened. It is a wonderful circus, but it is irrelevant to the economic and social problems of the country and of the world at large. Tourists may admire it, but in Zurich, Bonn and in the councils of the world, it is an irrelevant institution. What is more relevant is the efficiency of our industries.
  Let us be careful about what we do. Parliament is not discredited. It is admired all over the world, but do not let us perpetuate the illusion that the wealth and prosperity of the country depends on this institution or that one, or on the co-ordination of the activities of the two. The way in which the country will restore its wealth and influence in the world is by the work and endeavour of the people in our offices, factories, workshops, banks and other institutions. They are the people who create the wealth. This is the institution which sees that it is fairly distributed. We should try and create the conditions in which our people feel that their efforts earn adequate rewards. Do not let us kid ourselves and the people that a two-day debate on what we should do with this ancient monument has any relevance to today's conditions.
  Over the past hundred years, because of our laws of succession, probably we have avoided many of the pitfalls experienced by other countries in Europe,
  1384
  but I must not go into that now. The proposition is that the eldest son of a peer can renounce his title—though his son can apply for it on the death of his father—but he can apply for a life peerage and so take his seat in the other place. However, he has the same blood and the same views and interests to protect. I am amazed that this Government should make such a proposition, trying to sustain an institution which will become a merry-go-round for all sorts of so-called meritocracy and inherited circles.
  Peerages are not being abolished. Peers will still be privileged in their ability to get into the other place, which will be far more respectable and perhaps have more influence under these proposals. I say that it should be left as it is, an absurd anachronism with little influence. Some of its debates are very interesting. Let their Lordships sit there and debate.
  I believe that we should wait until the Commission on the Constitution reports. Then we can discuss it and perhaps we can do something to improve the efficiency of our political system, possibly with three Parliaments, and this institution can go the way that it should have gone in 1648.
  7.48 p.m.
  Mr. Ian Gilmour: The Government's proposals have been hammered severely throughout our two days of debate, and rightly so, though I have some sympathy with the Government, because the problem basically is insoluble.
  I do not think that a second Chamber has ever carried out successfully its allegedly classical function of interposing delay so that the Lower House and the people have a chance to think again. The Senate in the French Third Republic went against the tide of popular favour, but that is about the only second Chamber to do so and, even in that case, the end result was not very good.
  The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) thought that these proposals were a betrayal of Socialism. I cannot say that, but it is odd that our hereditary peers should be detached from the House of Lords in this way. The most probable result will be that they will flood into this House. For example, those noble Lords who have stately

  1385
  homes may think that it would be a splendid advertisement to come here, especially if this Chamber is to be televised.
  I would welcome that, because it would brighten up the place, but it would be an odd achievement for the Labour Party, which, historically, has always been intent on abolishing the House of Lords, if it ends up instead by abolishing the House of Commons, leaving us with two Houses of Lords, with the hereditary peers in this one and life peers in the other place. There are many objections to these proposals, but they have already been stated so I will not add to them.
  I pick on one fundamental point. The most remarkable feature of these proposals is that it is taken for granted in them that an elected second Chamber is not feasible. My right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), speaking from very different points of view, both ruled out an elected House. And the White Paper, in paragraph 22, says:
  "But whatever the system of election and whatever its powers, a directly elected second chamber would inevitably become a rival to the House of Commons."
  This is simply not true. The Government, in their proposals, continually cite the experience of other countries as an argument against a single Chamber, but totally ignore the experience of other countries when they consider what form the second Chamber should take. There is no other hereditary House in the world. There is only one other wholly nominated House in the world. That is in Canada, and nobody in Canada or elsewhere pretends or suggests that the Senate there works well.
  In every other country in the world the second Chamber is an elected body. The idea that because both Chambers are elected they must always vie for supremacy is not borne out by experience. The key fact is whether there is Cabinet Government. If there is no Cabinet Government there may well be a quarrel between the two Houses, but with Cabinet Government the Cabinet has to be responsible to one House or the other. It cannot be responsible to both. This is so everywhere except Sweden, but the
  1386
  situation there is different because both Houses are very closely joined together. Wherever else there is Cabinet Government it is plain to which House the Cabinet is responsible. This principle has prevailed even in federations, such as Australia, where there is Cabinet Government.
  If we had an elected second Chamber there is no doubt the Cabinet would still be responsible to the House of Commons. Therefore, it is not good enough to take without argument the proposition that an elected second Chamber must be ruled out. Nor is there any difficulty in logic, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South West said, about which House is representative of the electorate. It is plain that this House will be chiefly representative of the electorate. The reformed Constitution would merely be saying that every now and then the second Chamber, which had also been elected, was pointing out that the first Chamber was not infallible and was asking it to think again. These proposals err fundamentally, both on the ground of the experience of other countries and on logic, in totally ruling out an elected second Chamber.
  But a second Chamber does not have to be hereditary or nominated or elected. With a reformed national and regional Government structure, the leaders of the regions could automatically be Members of another House. That is what happens in Germany. It is not a spectacular success there, but equally it is not a spectacular failure, and it might be the right way to organise the second Chamber in this country. But that question, and the question of a wholly elected second Chamber, cannot be considered until we have had the report of the Royal Commission on the Reform of Local Government. There is, therefore, an overwhelming case for waiting for the report and not rushing on.
  I understand that the Secretary of State for Social Services told his party that this reform had to go through to safeguard the Government's last year in office. If he really said that he must have a low opinion of his audience, because everybody knows full well that the House of Lords, as at present constituted, would never for one moment dare to destroy the Government's programme under any circumstances. The only time that it might

  1387
  do anything would be if there was a Measure which was universally unpopular. It is just conceivable that it might then pluck up courage to do something about such a Measure, but it is highly unlikely. If it did, it would not hurt the Government. It would help them, because it would remove an unpopular Measure from their programme and also give the Government an issue of Lords against the people. There seems therefore to be no case for the Government pressing forward their so-called reform on those grounds.
  The fundamental objection to doing this now is that there has been too much tinkering with the Constitution. There is too much going on. We have had the gerrymandering of the London Government Bill. We now have the Representation of the People Bill coming on. The Government, as the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) pointed out, would be far better occupied in dealing with other matters and getting on with governing the country. Because the whole issue seems to be fundamentally irrelevant I will vote against the proposals tonight.
  7.56 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Ogden: The hon. Member for Norfolk Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour) will forgive me if I do not follow him into the intracacies of which House is taking over which. He has more experience than I of take-overs.
  It is not unusual for voices raised here to be more against the proposals that come before us than for them. Those who tend to say that it is not perhaps so bad, in the main to find themselves busy outside, where they are probably more usefully occupied. But I have never, in a one or two days' debate, heard so much universal condemnation from every part of the House of any proposal which has come before it. I had thought on a two days debate, "How will they keep it going?". The Government are probably wondering now how on earth they can stop it. The issue of a three-line Whip, with respect to whoever thought of it, will not make the slightest difference. If I was going into any Lobby than the one I intend going into, a three-line Whip would make no difference to me. However, I would hope that those on the Opposition benches who might offer sympathy
  1388
  will leave us to sort out that problem amongst ourselves. My hon. Friends and I, above and below the gangway, are quite capable of making our point of view known to those responsible on our side. Let us have a private fight on this matter.
  There is a rumour going around the corridors that if any backbench Member from either side is prepared to come into this Chamber and speak in favour of the Motion, or even offer qualified support, he may collect his Letters Patent and coronet as he goes through the Government Lobbies tonight. I offer qualified support and I intend to go into the Government Lobbies tonight. After all, the temptation is almost irresistible. A life tenancy of a legislature, £2,000 per annum, no constituency problems, a title of one's own choosing, and all that that means in perks of one kind or another. Not only the licence to be erratic, irresponsible and difficult, but almost a demand that a lord should be eccentric. Compared with our lot in this place it is almost an irresistible temptation. I hope to be able to resist it.
  Mr. Leslie Spriggs rose—
  Mr. Ogden: I might be coming back to the point my hon. Friend has in mind. I have suffered a great many interventions from other people on other occasions and I—
  Mr. Spriggs rose—
  Mr. Ogden: I will not give way even this once to my hon. Friend. I will make my speech in the hope that I may leave time for others to make theirs.
  I was saying that I hope to resist the temptation to reject this coronet, even though it has not been offered, because I fought hard to win my place in this Chamber and I intend to fight even harder to remain.
  It may be a waste of time to explain my reason for voting as I shall vote, because it seems that this temporary alliance between the minority Members of both Front Benches, supported by odd bods in the Liberal Party, was shattered in the closing remarks of the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), who said that it would last until after the 10 o'clock vote tonight. The price of any further alliance is that this side of the House must make concessions to the other. Any concession

  1389
  that the Opposition may have in mind would be completely unacceptable even to those on this side who will probably go into the Government Lobbies with them tonight.
  I think that the White Paper as a White Paper was killed stone dead at about 4.0 or 4.45 p.m. today, but those who are able to offer even qualified support for these proposals should say why they are prepared to go into the Lobby tonight, and I propose to do so. The White Paper on House of Lords Reform—and I am grateful that we can refer to the other place in that way because it means that we have made some progress—can be judged only if we consider it in the context of the Gracious Speech which outlined a programme of useful and necessary legislation which, if carried through in this Parliament, will improve the standard of living, the working conditions, and the quality of life of many of our people. Above all, the strategy seems to be that it is a programme of sweetness and light, wherein agreement and reasonableness are valued much more highly than perfection and controversy. Equally, it is an optimistic programme, and this White Paper is part of that strategy.
  The dangers of such a strategy have been plain to see for a long time. They should be even more plain to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Social Services. I watched him from time to time yesterday and I noticed a look of amazement come over his benign features as he suddenly discovered that it was possible for people on these benches to disagree with his proposals in the White Paper. There was a look almost of incredulity when my right hon. Friend realised that someone could disagree with him. My right hon. Friend has not spent as much time in the Chamber today as he did yesterday. If he has not already been convinced of the fact that we can disagree with him, I hope to convince him before I conclude my speech. Everyone on these benches disagrees profoundly with my right hon. Friend about something. Most of us disagree with him on the proposals in this White Paper. We hope that he will take a sabbatical from constant exhortation and advice. Most of us hope and expect that my right hon. Friend will listen to and learn from what has been said in the debate, particularly from these benches.
  1390
  My first piece of advice is that this should be not only the first, but the last, attempt at consensus legislation based on agreement between two minorities on the two Front Benches. Had I been sent here to legislate as a Conservative-Socialist, or a Socialist-Conservative, or any other permutation, that would have been in my election address. I know that some of my hon. Friends think I am a little too moderate at times, but they never go as far as that, and I hope that they never will. I was sent here as a Labour Member. A Labour Party, a Labour majority, and a Labour Government should introduce, support, and carry through Labour legislation. Let us have no more of the idea of minority consensus legislation from the two Front Benches.
  The only basis on which one can support the Government is that we are asked, not to approve the White Paper, but to note it. As has been emphasised time and again, a White Paper contains a draft of proposals, and can be amended. In this case it should be. In view of the procedures that are available, we hope that the Government will accept great changes in the White Paper. We are being forced to discuss the composition of the second Chamber before we have decided what we want the second Chamber to be, or what we want it to do. I accept that merely to defer this, or pass it to the Constitutional Commission, would put the matter out of sight for too long.
  I believe in two-Chamber Parliamentary democracy. I want to see the second Chamber composed of people who can best represent all walks of life, all skills and achievements, and some people perhaps of no special skill or achievement save that they can represent the views of different parts of our society. I want a second Chamber which has the time to improve the quality of legislation which goes from this place. I want a second Chamber which has physical time to look not only at the immediate day-to-day issues which too often confront us, but at the long term issues which we in this place are prevented from discussing because of the sheer pressure on our time. I want to see a second Chamber which can itself, or at

  1391
  times perhaps jointly with this House, inquire into matters and make recommendations such as are sometimes made by Royal Commissions or other outside bodies.
  Inevitably, that second Chamber will be a part-time Chamber, or perhaps more of a part-time Chamber than this one. There is no doubt that while some of us here have to be housekeepers—and there is no shame in that; on the contrary, one can take considerable pride in it—there is a place for part-timers either here or in the other place. I do not believe in either first- or second-class citizens. I do not believe in first- or second-class Members of any assembly, so I cannot agree with the idea that there should be voting and non-voting peers. They should all come through the same door, through the same machinery of selection, or allocation, or nomination, into one assembly. I hope that the right of the hereditary peer to speak or to vote will be ended on the death of the present holder of the Writ. Because I believe that all members should come through the same door, I cannot agree with a part nominated by patronage, and part elected from the regions or by some form of electoral college. It is claimed that those who come from the regions could speak with authority on and represent their regions. So can we. Equally, those from the regions could speak for the nation. So can we.
  The claim is sometimes made for the "Lords by patronage" that they can speak more freely than Members of the House of Commons can because they do not have to look over their shoulders at the electors, for they have no electors. But it would be a poor Member of Parliament who voted, or acted, or spoke, against his judgment and conscience simply because he believed that to do so would please his electors. Certainly such a person would not deserve to be in this place.
  I have tried hard to think of a new name for this other place. It is a new assembly. A variety of names has been suggested, some less polite than others. Mention has been made of "Senate" "Second Assembly" "Council of State" and that kind of thing. It has also been asked whether it should be "Lord X"
  1392
  or "X.L.P." but L.P. has a certain connotation which may not be popular. It means a long-playing record.
  I must, reluctantly, accept that part of the bait to lure people to the House of Lords is a title, and this might as well be said. I recall that in the last Session my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) introduced a Bill to abolish all titles. I made the point then that simply to abolish titles by law would not prevent their continued use. There have been republics on the Continent and elsewhere where the monarchy—and I do not advocate this—and titles have been abolished by law, but it has still been the Marchesa of this, the Duke of that, the Count of something else, and people with a courtesy title.
  I am concerned about power and the use of patronage. There is concern in parts of our party, and of the country, about the apparent misuse of patronage itself. Certainly the appointments to the reformed House must be separated from the natural or normal peerage, and certainly separated from the Honours List. I think it desirable, indeed essential, that when the Prime Minister, or the Leader of the Opposition, or the Leader of the Liberal Party, nominate or advise Her Majesty to create new peers, the reasons for such nominations should be given, and clearly known to everyone. There is no shame—indeed there is pride—in it being known that Lord X has been nominated a life peer of Parliament because of his services to industry, to the trade unions, to the arts, to the skills, or whatever it is. Why should there be any secrecy about it? Let it be made known, and be clear to everyone.
  A hereditary peer can dispense with his title or put it into cold storage. Why should not a life peer be allowed to dispense with his title when he no longer requires it?
  On my next point, I will tread carefully, since it concerns an omission in the proposals relating to the Lords Spiritual. There is a proper place in the Utopian House which I would like for representatives of the faiths and creeds of this land. Already, the Anglican Church, because of its historial Establishment links, has a place for senior members of its hierarchy, as has the Church of Scotland, by accident. The Methodist Church, whether by accident

  1393
  or design, has members there who can at times, speak for the Methodist Church. I am a member of a Protestant Church, a Methodist, even a Primitive Methodist, and one cannot get much more nonconformist than that. But it is possible that someone from "outside" can speak more easily on such matters than an "insider".
  I put it to the Front Bench that we are entitled to know why the reforms do not include a proposal for the representation of the British hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church, in the new, reformed House of Lords. I make it clear that I am not a member of the Roman Catholic Church, nor have I been asked to speak or put this suggestion forward on behalf of anyone in or from that Church. Indeed, I think that, if either the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Liverpool or the Archbishop of Westminster were offered a seat, he would gracefully decline—[Interruption.] I spoke of only two Archbishops and the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) would not claim that distinction. This point should have been raised and we should know whether it has been considered.
  Mr. Frank Tomney rose—
  Mr. Ogden: No, I cannot give way, since several other hon. Members wish to speak.
  Mr. Tomney: I only wanted to protect Her Majesty as Defender of the Faith.
  Mr. Ogden: I must leave that matter to Her Majesty. And Fid Def was awarded to Henry VIII for defending the Roman Church.
  I am less concerned about the powers of Members of the House of Lords in the House of Lords, than I am about the powers of the Members of that House outside. That is where a royal battle will be fought now and later.
  This White Paper has been killed stone dead by those who seem to have made an agreement with the Government Front Bench earlier today. But the price of the continued alliance between the mini-Front Benches will be further and further concessions from this side. I can support the Government tonight because this is a White Paper, a draft, because it is to be noted, because I hope and expect that the Government will be wise
  1394
  enough to listen to what has been said from these benches and will take this advice—after having won their victory in the Lobbies—for what it is worth, and will then bring forward proposals for the reform of the House of Lords based on what we on this side believe, and let it be a straight fight between this side and the other.
  8.14 p.m.
  Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: I must first congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) on a series of intellectual and moral gyrations which would earn him an honoured place in the ranks of the schoolmen, were that school of philosophy still extant. To paraphrase his position, without, I hope, misrepresenting it, he is going to support the Government in the Lobby because he disapproves of everything in the White Paper.
  However, I welcome his generous and ecumenical suggestion that dignitaries of the Roman Catholic Church should be invited to sit in the upper House. I assure him that, far from graciously declining any such invitation, they are much more likely graciously to accept. If the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney) is afraid on the grounds of any difficulty which might be caused by the Royal title of "Defender of the Faith", may I set his mind at rest? This title was conferred upon the monarch Henry VIII first by the Pope, and then, for reasons which I need not go into, it was taken away and was re-conferred by Parliament. So there are two titles here, for two faiths. Any difficulty could, correspondingly, be satisfactorily resolved and the hon. Member's conscience, like that of the hon. Member for West Derby, set at rest.
  I must confess that, as I address, to borrow a phrase from the learned Attorney-General, what I am pleased to call my mind to this subject, it is not the moral dilemmas of either of the two hon. Gentlemen who are uppermost in it. But there are two thoughts, one of which I owe to the late Lord Melbourne and the other to the far from late and very quick hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). I think of Lord Melbourne's civilised 18th century piece of scepticism, "Why cannot you leave it

  1395
  alone?" I think also of the hon. Member's wise piece of practical advice that, when the two Front Benches of this House are in agreement, that is a sign for the House of Commons to beware. That warning has been adequately heeded in this debate.
  When I think of the arguments that we have heard today, of the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), who defended the White Paper skilfully by hardly mentioning its proposals, or of the performance of the Leader of the Liberal Party, who addressed us for 40 minutes and has now evaporated somewhere into the stratosphere, who defended it on the grounds that its proposals would not last very long, or the speech of the Attorney-General, so full of contradictions, which I pass over in charitable silence, except to say that only he could have got away with such a speech in the manner in which he did—that is a tribute to him personally and not to the White Paper—I must conclude that this White Paper has precipitated a synthetic constitutional crisis.
  I represent Chelmsford, a constituency which, if not typical in its Member is at least typical in its composition. When I was in Western Canada recently, I found a research student who was thesisistically interested in my constituency and had flatteringly chosen it for the subject of a doctoral dissertation. He had discovered that the distribution of population in Chelmsford was within 0·1 per cent. of the national average, so it is a good test case. I can assure the House that they are not clamouring in Chelmsford for the abolition or even the reform of the House of Lords and I doubt whether they are doing so anywhere else.
  It is said that the House of Lords is theoretically indefensible. Since when have the British electorate been obsessed with niceties of constitutional theory? Do the Government seriously suggest that the topic of conversation in every public house tonight centres on the lineage of Lord Salisbury? Why, then, has this White Paper been introduced? There is a simple reason. It is another, I am afraid, of the Prime Minister's miscalculations. It was intended to
  1396
  appease the egalitarian sentiment of his supporters, but this has been sadly misjudged, judging from the universal condemnation it has received from the benches opposite in this debate.
  The case for the House of Lords is not theoretical because politics is not an exercise in logic but in life. The case for the Lords is an eminently practical one. First, it is an assembly which works—it is not perfect—tolerably well and, secondly, any second Chamber that is thought up a priori is likely to be much worse. If one required proof of that general proposition, the White Paper provides it.
  No nation has been able to construct in theory a satisfactory second Chamber. Nations which have attempted to do so have produced either assemblies which are impotent or which have caused political paralysis. We, by accident of history, have the good fortune to have inherited a special second Chamber, based partly on the principle of heredity and partly on the principle of life peerages, and it works reasonably satisfactorily.
  I appeal to the Government once again, in the words of Lord Melbourne, to accept that the case has been overwhelmingly made out for the situation to be left as it is. If a further reform is needed, it could be a simple one; namely, the election by the House of Lords of a representative group of hereditary voting peers. That would demolish even the theoretical objections which are valid against the second Chamber.
  I know, however, that that is unacceptable to the Government—simply because it is unacceptable to the Labour Party. They believe that there should not be further legislative recognition of the hereditary principle. But that is the Government's problem and not a difficulty for the Opposition.
  With the greatest deference and respect, I urge the Opposition Front Bench to accept that it is not their function to help to promote Socialist principles but to defend Conservative ones. There is nothing contrary to Conservative principles in preserving, in part, the hereditary principle in the public life of the country. After all, it is part of Conservative philosophy to regard society not as the

  1397
  work of one generation, but of many; and we regard a unit of society not as the individual nor as the collectivity of the State, but as the family.
  This being so, why should we, the Conservative Party, co-operate to promote a reform which is based on a philosophy which we do not accept? The only argument I have heard is that if we do not support this reform we shall be faced with a situation in which the House of Lords is likely to be abolished altogether. It is a curious moral principle that we should do something wrong for fear of getting something worse.
  In fact, this would be highly unlikely to happen and, if we ceased to co-operate with the Government in this ill-judged venture, I believe that we would hear of it no more. I doubt whether we would hear very much about the reform of the House of Lords in this Parliament. The whole project would probably be laid to rest with mute obsequies, which is all that it deserves.
  I urge the Opposition Front Bench not to put its faith in such an evanescent quality as the intellectual convictions of the Secretary of State for Social Services. This is not necessarily his final view on the whole subject. We had his apologia pro vita sua yesterday. He described to us his move from the outer darkness of the editorial desks of the New Statesman to the inner light of the Cabinet. But his thoughts on this subject may not be at an end. Who knows—his third thoughts may be an improvement on his first and his second.
  This scheme can only be described as a Constitutional monstrosity. It is the worst possible of all the solutions which could have been thought of. A totally nominated House is undoubtedly the worst solution, as has been pointed out in two well-argued leading articles in The Times. It imports a difference not of degree but of kind, since an upper House in which a nominated element is balanced by an hereditary element becomes an entirely different House in character when dominated by the nominated principle operating without any modification.
  Of course, the patronage of the Prime Minister in the long run, not in the short, will be immeasurably increased, and the nub of the argument here concerns the
  1398
  payment of these nominated peers. Some people are dazzled by a potential M.B.E. Others are likely to be blinded by the thought of a title plus a pension, for £2,000 a year, for life, awardable long before pensionable age is even in sight. Naturally, the effects must be to increase party domination in the House, and that is no doubt why the leaders of the two parties are in favour of the scheme.
  As Belloc has been quoted, I will add a small passage from Belloc applicable to this unholy alliance. He was talking about General Elections, but it is relevant to our present debate:
  "The accursed power which stands on privilege
  (and goes with women and champagne and bridge)
  Broke and democracy resumed its reign
  (which goes with bridge and women and champagne.")
  That is all that needs to be said about Front Bench alliance which has brought about such a remarkable counter-alliance on the back benches.
  The second deformity which the White Paper has produced is the suggestion that a group of peers should be created who will be able to speak but not vote. That is a separation at unnatural as it is contemptible. It creates a class of persons who, in the strictest sense of the word, are irresponsible; they can say what they please but are prevented or protected from doing anything about it.
  The third mutation produced by the Secretary of State for Social Services, in which he bids us place our trust, is this new category of cross-bench peers. The whole working of the Upper House is to depend on this intellectual abstraction which, apparently, is incapable of definition, but which the Prime Minister, acting on some means of intuitive osmosis denied to the rest of us, will immediately recognise for what it is, and act accordingly. As Mrs. Beeton once advised in her celebrated cookbook, "First catch your hare". First, Mr. Attorney-General, catch your cross-bench peers, but the Attorney-General himself has warned this animal that if it dares to differentiate itself from the leopard and change its spots it will immediately be put down, thus vitiating the whole intent of the scheme which was to give these new creatures a balance of power in the Upper House.

  1399
  The details of this scheme are equally absurd. I cannot go into all of them but I want to deal with one or two as they are revealed in this White Paper. First the bishops and the law Lords. They are to be a privileged class within a privileged class. Not for them the attendance register, not for them even the passage of time. They are to hold their places free of any attendance requirement and free of any age limit. Yet if one looks at the history of the House of Lords—I regret to have to say this but it is an historical fact that the most reactionary elements in the House of Lords, the worst elements, those most opposed to progress and change, have been the ecclesiastics and lawyers. Yet they are to be selected by a Labour Government for a privileged position. Could absurdity go further?
  Finally, the White Paper provides a committee to preside over this constitutional mish-mash and to keep it under constitutional review. It is a committee which is to be appointed and presided over by someone with no party affiliations—a political eunuch. This Committee has terms of reference so vague that continued study of the White Paper does not reveal any clear principles on which it is to act. It is set up for the purpose of advising a Prime Minister who is not under any vestige of legal or constitutional duty to pay the slightest attention to what it suggests. What a sad conclusion to the years of effort to produce a viable constitutional settlement for an intractable problem!
  What then are we to do? The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) expressed some dismay at the prospect of going into the Lobby with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). I hope that he will not take it amiss if I say for somewhat different reasons that I have some hesitations in going into the Lobby with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Fife, West, because I know that he wants to sweep away the whole lot—the House of Lords—the peers, titles, everything. He thinks that the present system greatly increases snobbery. May I say to him that snobbery is not the result of the House of Lords but of something he does not believe in, original sin.
  1400
  There is only one class of people free from snobbery. That is the saints and they are a minority group in our legislative assembly. There are worse things than the snobbery of rank. There is the snobbery of wealth which is found in the United States and the snobbery which one finds in France of the petit founctionnaire. I suggest that the hon. Member may get rid of the least ignoble form of snobbery and enthrone in its place something which is much worse.
  The Attorney-General: Is it not a fact that the only saint to become a member of the House of Commons was beheaded? Is that not a rather unattractive augury.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: Perhaps that is why other saints have been so notably reluctant to come forward and offer themselves for election. He was also the only Speaker of the House of Commons who was beheaded. That sets in train an interesting association of ideas.
  What are we to do? Let us take a piece of advice from that very wise woman Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth I. She said that it was not her business to make windows into men's souls. It is not our business to examine the motives which are driving people into the anti-Government Lobby tonight. We must accept the important part of their action which is that they are voting with their feet as well as with their speeches. I have no hope for members of the Government. I have hope for members of the Labour Party but not for members of the Government. The payroll vote will have its way. It is not without relevance to the subject of our discussions that that should be so. I do, however, have some vestigial hopes for the leaders of my party. I appeal to them to have nothing to do with this botched up scheme which is based on principles which are alien to the traditions and genius of the Conservative Party.
  What is constitutionally wrong cannot be politically right. By basing ourselves this evening not on grounds of expediency but on grounds of principle we may lose the support of some but shall gain the support of others. I am sure that if we adopt an attitude of expediency we shall be certain to lose the respect of all, and we shall deserve so to do.
  8.35 p.m.
  Mr. Douglas Jay: There does not seem to be any universal enthusiasm in the House for the White Paper proposals. I have not been able to detect any consensus in their favour. For that reason, I think the Government would be wise to think again about some of the main aspects of those proposals. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, whom I have known for 40 years, is quite capable of thinking again.
  After all, we are debating a White Paper and not a Bill. A White Paper is presumably put forward for discussion. If a Government put forward a White Paper for discussion and are not prepared to listen to the views of the House of Commons about it, there does not seem much point in a White Paper, or, indeed, the House of Commons itself.
  After one and a half days' debate the arguments seem, putting it very briefly, to have reached this point. Most of us, if not all, agree that it is probably better to have a revising second Chamber rather than no second Chamber at all. Almost all the other advanced democracies have it. Almost all of us are agreed that heredity is an indefensible method of selecting the second Chamber. But there are only three ways of making this selection. One is the hereditary principle, another is election by somebody, and the third, it is assumed, is selection, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister.
  Most of us are agreed that direct election by the electorate is unacceptable because it would undermine the House of Commons and cause confusion and conflict. For this reason the Government propose selection by the Prime Minister of what would become mainly a salaried Chamber.
  A great many inside and outside the House are seriously perturbed by the extent of the patronage to which this would lead. In my view, the danger of patronage is not one that can be lightly disregarded. There are so many pressures today both inside and outside the Government on independence of judgment that I very much doubt whether we can afford many more. Indeed, if a modern Government are to be able to rely on perhaps 120 Ministers, Whips and P.P.S.s
  1402
  and, in addition, perhaps another 50 Members of the House of Commons who would not mind being nominated for the upper Chamber, I think we should be going rather a long way back from the nineteenth century to the eighteenth.
  But there is one other logical possibility which would minimise patronage and, possibly, corruption and at the same time would not exalt the Upper House into a rival of the House of Commons. That would be some form of election of the new peers by the House of Commons itself, or at the very least approval, as we do with Select Committees, of the selected Members by this House. This is one of the proposals which the Bryce Commission considered.
  No doubt all sorts of difficulties would be involved in that. One could retail them easily, but I shall not do that tonight. For instance, how would candidates be selected? But I am far from convinced that these difficulties are insuperable or that the difficulties and evils involved in this alternative would be greater than giving this almost unlimited patronage to the Prime Minister of the day.
  The White Paper did not examine these possibilities, so far as I can see, seriously or convincingly, but merely rejected selection on a regional basis on the grounds that the Royal Commissions proposed would consider that. But that is reason for delay and not for rejection of reasonable possible alternatives.
  Although I accept a good deal in the White Paper, I urge the Government to consider the whole problem again, and, in particular, the possible alternative I have mentioned, which would get round some of the difficulties, although it might create others. If the Government undertook to do this tonight, I think that some of us would find it a good deal easier to decide how we are going to vote.
  8.40 p.m.
  Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe: Any White Paper which includes proposals for reform as far reaching as this one deserves the cold and calculated scrutiny which the House has rightly given it. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). In my time here, I have never known a White Paper receive such a cold reception.

  1403
  If the Government intend to introduce legislation in this Parliament based on the proposals in the White Paper, their timing and idea of priorities is strange. The economy is shaky. Our defences leave us more naked than in 1938. Yet they bring forward proposals for reform of the House of Lords, which has nothing to do with the urgent needs of the country. We all know why they have put that reform so high on their strange list of priorities.
  Yesterday, one or two hon. Members said that they wished to do away with a second Chamber. They were in favour of single-Chamber Government. I am opposed to that view. In this country which has no written constitution, it is essential to have not only a second Chamber but one with adequate delaying powers. This is all the more necessary when there is a big majority in the House of Commons—the Government party—which at times is clearly losing, if it has not lost, the confidence of the country. That is the situation we have now.
  Those who wish to abolish the second Chamber, never mind how it is constituted, and want single-Chamber Government must ask themselves, "Would it not be a good thing to have a written constitution?" Single-Chamber Government without a written constitution is the worst road to dictatorship I can think of.
  I come now to the proposed two-tier system. This introduces a new element in that Members of the other place could speak but not vote. Perhaps the Home Secretary will say whether this rather strange principle—I do not necessarily condemn it, but it is new—is applied in any other Chamber in any country in the world. It is certainly a new principle of constitutional or Parliamentary usage here. It would lead to strange anomalies. For example, a non-voting peer with unrivalled knowledge of a certain subject could make a first-class speech on that subject which might well sway the whole issue but he could not vote. Such a peer could presumably move a complicated and technical Amendment to a Bill but could not vote on it. This is a strange departure from the normal custom.
  Paragraph 47 discusses the question of the size of the second Chamber and, in
  1404
  an attempt to allay any fears, states that various mathematical formulae have been gone into. I suppose computers have been used to prove that, no matter how majorities here change, the size of the newly constituted House of Lords will not vary greatly. I am not sure about this and I would like reassurance from the Home Secretary.
  There is a large majority in the Commons at present. The White Paper says that if legislation was promulgated along the lines of the White Paper about 80 new voting peers would have to be created, the majority of whom would no doubt be chosen from existing hereditary peers. But the Prime Minister would have to create a certain number of Labour voting peers to give him the required 10 per cent. majority in the newly constituted second Chamber. If after the next General Election the majority is completely the other way round—I can think of more unlikely eventualities—a number of those newly created Labour voting peers would have to be relegated to the second tier: they could then speak but not vote.
  Sir John Rodgers: They are there for life.
  Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: They are in the House of Lords for life.
  Sir John Rodgers: They are speakers for life, too.
  Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: If they are voters as well as speakers, and if that majority changes, the Conservative Prime Minister would have to create a whole lot of new peers to reverse the majority. This is the snowball effect, unless the calculation has been made that death plus retirement at 72 will syphon off a sufficient number.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan)indicated assent.
  Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: I hope that is right. I do not know whether the Home Secretary has picked up this point: I am not saying that 72 is wrong, but it would have excluded Lord Attlee from voting. This is one of the by-products of fixing an arbitrary age for retirement. I shall need much convincing that this will not be a snowball.
  Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Gentleman has thought his way step by step to precisely the same conclusion as the Conference did. The analysis he has made is that analysis which was proved by the figures given to the Conference.
  Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: Did the Conference, with the aid of the computer or whatever mathematical device it had to help it, do the calculation necessary to determine what would have been the position in the Labour Government of 1929, with a very narrow majority followed by the National Government of 1931 with a huge one?
  Mr. Callaghan: It did all the calculations.
  Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: I am surprised—
  Mr. Callaghan: So was I.
  Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe:—and I shall be surprised if this does not turn out to be a very large snowball.
  The Cross benchers are to provide the let-out. The White Paper explains that, although the Government are to have a narrow majority, it will be the cross benchers who will put the brake on, if necessary, and force the Government of the day to have second thoughts. It is proposed that there should be about 30 cross benchers. We are entitled to speculate about whether 30 cross benchers knowing that they have power will behave in exactly the same manner as about 100 cross benchers now behave knowing that they do not have power.
  This is a very interesting speculation. Cross-benchers, by their very nature, are not aligned to any political party. Why should they be? They do not have corporate views? Why should they? They take all sorts of different views on all sorts of different subjects. One or two of the cross-bench peers have great difficulty in taking any view about anything. One or two things could happen. Either the cross-benchers, if they stick together and have a corporate view, could behave, in miniature, as the Irish Members behaved in this Parliament in the old days. I am not saying they would, but they could. Alternatively, they could split three or four ways—or 30 ways—according to what the issue was, in which case there would be no effective brake at all.
  1406
  What will happen if a cross-bencher decides that he no longer wants to be a cross-bencher, but wants to join one or other of the parties, or, conversely, if one of the voting peers decides that he does not wish to be aligned to any particular party, but wants to go on the cross-benches? Then the mathematical balance is upset. Does that mean another life—voting—peer has to be created to get it right? We want the Home Secretary to tell us.
  It is important that the newly constituted House of Lords, however it may be achieved, should contain reasonable numbers of peers of the 35–45 age group. If it does not, the second chamber will simply be a chamber of very old men, life peers, either speaking or voting, appointed at the end of a long and distinguished career of some form of service. I do not think that a very old second Chamber is an effective brake or an effective legislative machine such as we want. I do not see how one will get younger peers into the second chamber except through the hereditary principle.
  I do not know how they will be found. That is why I for one regret that there is no element whatever in the proposals for amending the present hereditary principle. I do not see how one will get a reasonable number of young peers to do the work if it is not through their hereditary principle. How otherwise will the Home Secretary find younger men, maybe halfway up the ladder of their career and doing rather well, to chuck it all up to be appointed a voting peer for one Parliament only and afterwards run the risk of being only a speaking peer? I do not think that he will find them.
  Then there is the question of payment. I know that this is a very controversial issue, whatever certain hon. Gentlemen opposite may say. I do not think that the voting peers, who have to do the work in the House of Lords, can be expected to do so unless they have reasonable remuneration. They cannot be expected to come up from perhaps the North of England, the Midlands or the West, and work two or three days a week, particularly on the Committee stage of a Bill, and be out of pocket. There must be adequate remuneration.
  Equally, with the speaking peers, if they are expected to attend, as they ought

  1407
  to, to play some part in the life of the House of Lords and to make their contribution to the debates, they ought at least to have some form of travelling allowance. Whatever Government is in power, and whatever committee recommends the appointment of peers, unless the remuneration is reasonably adequate peers will have to be appointed by the size of their bank balance, or in more modern terms, of their overdraft. The House would regard that as a thoroughly undesirable principle.
  I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod): the timing of this proposal is almost incredible. By any yardstick, a proposal of this kind raises very big constitutional issues. The White Paper mentions the setting-up of a Royal Commission on the Constitution. But, apart from that, it is absolutely wrong that we should embark upon a measure of this nature, with all its far-reaching repercussions, which, if put into operation, would be bound in its early stages to have all sorts of teething troubles. The only time when that could be, in logic, put into operation must be at the beginning of the life of a new Parliament and not three-quarters of the way through the life of an old one.
  8.56 p.m.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: If it were my job to reply to this debate, which God forbid, I might take refuge in the method of saying that the attacks on the White Paper have been so varied that there must be something right with it. I should say that it could not be as wrong as all that. It could not have the effect, as suggested on one side of the House, of diminishing the power of the Lords unfairly and, as suggested on the other side of the House, of extending the Lords and giving them greater power. That is the only line which would be left open to me, and that is what I would say.
  Unfortunately, if that line should be adopted, it has been sunk in advance by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), who, in his speech which has received much praise, said with surprising frankness that the consequence of the White Paper is to give the Prime Minister "unprecedented
  1408
  powers of patronage by nomination". The right hon. Gentleman then went on to say that he would vote for it. Why does he say that he will vote for a measure the consequence of which is to give the Prime Minister "unprecedented powers of patronage by nomination"? The answer is fairly simple. He hopes, as a consequence of the passage of time and changes of mind by the electorate, that he, or possibly one removed, will be the distributor of that patronage.
  Therefore, as hon. Members on both sides have said, this is exposed as a joint decision by the two Front Benches—by the present Government and by the alternative Government—to obtain for themselves a position of greater authority than they enjoy now. This is the plan behind the White Paper.
  I suppose that many hon. Members came to the debate yesterday with their minds made up. There is no great harm in that. No doubt they had read the White Paper, and many of them have been over the arguments many times. I have often been in that position, but yesterday I was not. I listened carefully to the debate and I was in the position, or so I thought, that we are supposed to be in theoretically, namely, of listening to the debate—as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Services is not doing now—and making up my mind on whether to vote or not as a result of weighing up all the arguments. That was yesterday.
  This morning, with others on this side of the House, I received a communication which, in effect, says that I must vote in favour of approving the White Paper. It was a mistake to have issued that Whip. Constitutional questions are not fit subjects for the party Whip.
  As far as I am concerned, the effect on me has been quite opposite to that which seems to have been suffered by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden). I am sorry that he is not in the Chamber. The effect on me is that I shall no longer even consider the possibility of supporting the Government, which was one of the possibilities which I was weighing in my mind yesterday. It is now excluded to me. I doubt whether I should have done so anyway.
  But I am far from being in the position of finding no good in the White

  1409
  Paper. I am even further from being in the position of finding no good in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services who introduced the White Paper. I listened to his speech, although he has not given me much of his attention since I have been speaking.
  With one exception, I thought that my right hon. Friend's speech was painfully honest. I listened to him openly confessing the manner in which his not inconsiderable mind travelled the road from unicameralism to advocacy of the White Paper. I did not know whether to be overcome by admiration of his frankness or aghast at his naivety. He left out of account, of course, the question of democracy. He forgot that any change in the relationship of the two Houses of Parliament is also a change in the relationship of the electorate to the elected.
  I am never tired of quoting the only statement made by Disraeli with which I absolutely agree. He made it nearly 100 years ago in Manchester—on 3rd April, 1872, to be exact, although I forget the time. He said,
  "I believe that without party Parliamentary government is impossible."
  In the context of the society in which we live, party is the instrument of democracy, and without it there is no democracy. But the Government have been trying to govern with the minimum of party interference, that is to say, with the minimum of democracy and the maximum of autocracy. Under the guise of diminishing the aristocracy of the Lords, the White Paper increases the autocracy of the Government and weakens the democracy of the party.
  Some opponents of the White Paper, mostly hon. Members opposite, have commented on a decline in the authority of Parliament. Those critics have got hold of the wrong end of the stick. Mr. Butt, a Conservative commentator, pointed out convincingly in an otherwise unconvincing book that the hold of Parliament on the Executive has always been rather tenuous. It is, as has been said today, one of those old-time myths.
  What is real in our complex society is the growth of the power of the bureaucracy. The Treasury and the Foreign
  1410
  Office nearly always get their way, which is unfortunate, because they are invariably wrong. The danger of these proposals is that they weaken the counterbalance against the bureaucracy. They weaken the Parliamentary party and they seek to convert it into the Prime Minister's poodle. When the Prime Minister talked about dog licences, I pointed out that he does not license us—we license him. But when we have done that, he issues a special licence to about 100 people which they hold only as long as they support him.
  Under the White Paper he would acquire a lot more poodles, who would be unable to turn the balance of the Parliamentary party, so that the process of forcing the Government to change their mind, already difficult enough, would become virtually impossible. This would change the relationship between the elector and the elected, for in his election address the candidate would have to write, "It is understood that when elected I shall hand over my power of judgment to whoever my party chooses as its leader and will have to accept his interpretation of what these proposals and promises mean rather than my own." This is where I disagree with my right hon. Friend, in whose speech I otherwise found much to admire. It is many years since he was on the receiving end of party discipline, and the sensation is probably unusual and distant to him. He says that the powers of the Prime Minister and of the Government will not be markedly increased by this Measure. But they should be decreased.
  In the balance which must be held between Government and Opposition, the Opposition does not get a bad deal, but in the balance which must be held inside the umbrella party the back bencher does very badly when the party is in Government. Like most of us, I have argued for years that the two-party umbrella system we operate in this country is superior to the coalitions which exist in other democracies. In the last few months I have begun to doubt that proposition—certainly, any proposition contemplating the accretion of authority and patronage under one man as this White Paper proposes. We may have to get used to the idea of coalition Governments after the next General Election, so we had better be wary of making proposals

  1411
  which assume the continuation of the broad pattern of the distribution of party power which has existed in our democracy. Every fifty years or so there is a watershed, and one may be due about now. The last one began about 1918. Imagine if the Liberal Party had put forward this proposal then.
  There is something in the White Paper with which I agree. It is a practical attempt to tackle a difficult problem. I see nothing particularly wrong in a two tier upper House, any more than I see anything intrinsically wrong in a two-tier postal service. I accept that, unfortunately, under our Parliamentary system gradualism is inevitable. My complaint against the Government is not that in this measure, they are moving forward gradually, but that they are moving backwards rapidly.
  I agree with much of what has been said by the supporters of the Amendment, and I think I shall go into the Lobby with them, but I shall do so with some reluctance, for reasons which I will not bother to take up time to deal with now, because I promised to sit down by ten minutes past nine o'clock, and I should like to reassure the House that I have every intention of doing so, so it need not be too restive about that.
  I certainly cannot support these proposals, and if a Bill were brought forward to implement them I should strenuously oppose it, as, I think, would most hon. Members on both sides of the House. In particular, I would oppose the proposal that peers should continue to be created on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. This duty could best be put into the hands of a Committee of this House. I do not accept the argument which has been put in the White Paper against this course. It seems to me that it would be better that the Committee should be subjected to the embarrassments and pressures which the White Paper speaks of, rather than that the Prime Minister should be so subjected to them. The Committee could recommend to the Prime Minister, who would be expected to pass the recommendation on to the Queen. The most I would give him would be a blackball.
  Let me conclude by saying that what I have been arguing is not directed
  1412
  against the present Prime Minister. In spite of occasional little slips, he has withstood the pressures of office better than most, but that he has in fact slipped to some degree is shown by the fact that he is prepared to accept these powers which, if he were not himself Prime Minister, he would be among the first to see should not be entrusted to any single man, and which give to the Government an accretion of power which the present Government have not shown themselves ideologically responsible enough to enjoy.
  For these reasons, I shall be among those who will not be going into the Government Lobby tonight, three-line Whip or no.
  9.10 p.m.
  Sir Peter Rawlinson: The time has come for the virtual unanimity of the proceedings in the House, both today and yesterday, to be shattered once again by a speech from the Dispatch Box. Very few of the 41 speeches which have been made have been in favour of the White Paper. If there has been unanimity of criticism, certainly as many alternatives have been offered as there have been critics.
  Unlike anyone else who has spoken from the Front Bench, with the exception of the Attorney-General, I was not a member of the conference which discussed this subject, and I am able to speak and to vote freely. I look at the proposals in the White Paper in the context of the following matters.
  First, there was the announcement in the Queen's Speech of November, 1967, that the Government proposed to reduce the powers of the House of Lords and eliminate, the hereditary basis. Secondly, I recollected the statement which was agreed in 1948, some 20 years ago, between the then Labour Government and the Conservatives, led by Lord Salisbury, let it be remembered. In 1948 it had been agreed that no party should have a permanent majority in the House of Lords, and secondly that heredity itself could not constitute the sole qualification for admission. Thirdly, there were the discussions which had been entered into by the representatives of the various parties. Fourthly, there was the breaking off of the discussions in July, 1968, after a measure of agreement had been reached between the representatives.

  1413
  It is in that context and in the further context of what I personally wanted to do, which was to examine these proposals in the light of the functions of Parliament, that I have come to my decision about these proposals. Everybody in the House is interested in seeing that this Parliament as a whole should function, achieve its purposes and carry out its duties as we all want it to do. We consider the constitutional anomalies which always have existed in our system of parliamentary government. The supremacy of Parliament is a strange thing to some people. There is no check upon it from any outside power. The Ministers in our system have power under the Royal prerogative to legislate. Parliament takes upon itself judicial powers with regard to its own privileges. The judges can perform executive acts. All these matters are as much constitutional anomalies as the one referred to by the Attorney-General this afternoon when he spoke of his office; although he ignored that of the Lord Chancellor, who is head of the judiciary and also a member of the executive Cabinet.
  The justification for this was that it worked, and that the system met the requirements of the situation. I believe that there is a feeling of disquiet as to whether Parliament as a whole completely fulfils its tasks and duties today. Does Parliament as a whole carry out its functions as it should? I think the House will agree that our Parliament, and our system whereby Ministers are inside the legislature, provide a legislature which is the seat of all government but which should also control the Government. How effective nowadays is that control of Government by Parliament is a matter of doubt for every person here.
  Parliament has to provide a forum for debate. In the House of Commons opportunity is given for unrestricted debate, perhaps a little limited by the certainty that there will be a vote, although tonight will be a unique occasion when there is no certainty. The House of Lords provides a forum for debate of high quality, as has been acknowledged.
  Thirdly, Parliament must be looked at as a law-making institution. When the right hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Sir Dingle Foot) and my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) talk about the decline
  1414
  in the reputation of Parliament, it is very much due to the fact that, where it should be our purpose to devise and enact clearly expressed laws setting out the rights and obligations of our citizens, we have failed. It is a failure which has grown over the past few years.
  The changes made by the Secretary of State for Social Services have mainly been directed towards other rôles of Parliament and the more glamorous rôles of the Parliamentary Question, the statement and the speech. However, what we should be looking at in this context is Parliament's law-making rôle.
  Coming within my own sphere of responsibility on this side of the House are many politically non-controversial measures. From the time of their introduction to their receiving the Royal Assent, scores of Amendments are made, many of them proposed by the Government themselves. In the passage of any enactment through both Houses of Parliament, a great deal of work has to be done, and everyone who has been in Government has had experience of having discussions on a proposal, putting it before the House of Commons and hearing an hon. Member say, "This will not do", and making common sense suggestions for improvements which those in Government have been unable to devise.
  If we continue to have the quantity of legislation which we have recently seen put through Parliament, we must have more time to discuss and deal with it. It is the citizen who criticises Parliament when laws are bad, when their advisers are unable to say what Parliament intended and Her Majesty's judges cannot administer them. I have seen the considerable work that is done at present in the Upper House, and it could be done to a greater and better extent. Not enough time is spent on it and not enough attention is given to it by those who want to use Parliament as the forum for debate, and, as a result, do not devote sufficient time to concentrating on the fashioning of our laws.
  It was in those circumstances that I looked at the Government's proposals, and I looked at them from my own experience. That led me to believe that the legislative process of Parliament needs strengthening and that there is an indisputable need for an Upper House which

  1415
  must play an increasing part in the law-making processes of Parliament. To that end, one must have in the Upper House unpartisan and expert knowledge and experience capable of taking on the increased burden involved in the examination of any proposed legislation.
  How can that be effective—unless hon. Members are confident that Parliament is making good law, apart from policy? It must be effected by increasing the efficiency of Parliament. To do that, looking only at the Upper House in isolation, surely one can strengthen its capacity to deal with legislation without affecting the forum of debate which it represents. Although I criticise the Government for isolating the problem of the House of Lords, in the context of needing this improvement, in the context of the 1948 agreement between the parties and of the Gracious Speech of November, 1967, certainly I prefer these proposals to any others that I have heard canvassed during this debate.
  How can these matters be examined in isolation? I heard the alternatives presented by the various critics of these proposals. They have to be examined, because if they are not accepted we are asked what our proposals are. My right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) said that we must look at the status quo and ask whether it is acceptable as being able efficiently to do its task in the House of Lords. Taking the suggestion of a split House, some 300 Members doing one task with their various Committees and another 300 doing another task, is that acceptable to this House of Commons? What is the alternative to the whole abolition of the House of Lords? I think it is essential, as most Members have suggested, that we should have a second Chamber.
  Suggestions were made concerning what can be called the Bryce proposals—the elected body. Certainly they must produce a body which is a rival elected body to the House of Commons.
  What is left? As Parliamentarians, with the interests and the purposes of Parliament at heart, we have to make up our minds about the alternative. It seems that there is no rational alternative, save the one proposed in the White Paper. Of course there are the objections,
  1416
  of which much has been made by some right hon. and hon. Members. With great wit, and sometimes with a considerable amount of hilarity, they have tried to present these proposals.
  If we do not accept the other ways we are reduced to the principle of nomination and the patronage which therefore arises. It is right to compare that with the present patronage which is sustained and enjoyed. Of the peers set out in the White Paper, counting the law lords, over 300 have been appointed who can take and play a part in the upper House. Patronage has been greatly extended in recent years. The power to appoint to various boards and industries is much greater now than that which earlier Prime Ministers had. Nevertheless, on balance, would this not be a limitation of patronage; not the maintenance or extension of it? It will be a limitation on the Prime Minister of the day.
  If this House and this Parliament prizes improvement in our legislative machinery, I am prepared to pay a price. If the alternative is the abolition of the House of Lords, again I am prepared to pay the price of the nominating system. With the two-tier system of the voting and non-voting peer, the non-voting peer remains and still has the forum with the opportunity to bring unrivalled expertise and advice to the nation. That is what the peers have done in the past and should do in future. The voting peers will be, as it were, the operatives. If the critics assume that only political pensioners will be appointed, it would be very foolish of any Prime Minister to limit the political pensioners to voting peers. They would stultify the whole of these proposals and there would be a necessity to amend.
  On the quality of the 30 cross-bench peers, about whom there has been much discussion, every Member of this House will see and know their quality. It is reasonable to anticipate, as was indicated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West, that it will be only rare that the House of Lords will wish or be able to use its powers. It will certainly have the powers, but rarely will it use them, as my right hon. Friend indicated. It will remain in the decision of some 80 per cent. of the cross-bench voting peers to side with the Opposition parties to be able to reverse

  1417
  a Government decision. The important thing is to have the power so to do. If there is that power, and if there are those circumstances, there will be a second Chamber which will be initiating legislation, which will be revising legislation, and which will be able to use those reversing powers, though perhaps only rarely, when it is essential and necessary so to do. Because of the requirements of attendance, the other place would help Parliament to execute its task which I believe is so essential now.
  I repeat what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West. Our view is that anybody looking at this scheme would say, "Surely you are not going to introduce this when you are awaiting the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government, and when you are going to set up a Commission on the Constitution?" As my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour) said, this is tinkering with the problem. Anyone looking at these proposals would say, "Surely you should wait until such time as you can deal with this matter in its entirety?" But if that time is too far off, then surely my right hon. Friends are right to say that this change should be made to reflect the realities of the day, and not the situation back in 1966 when the Government were first elected?
  Mr. Shinwell: I follow the point being made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but let us suppose that when the Government introduce the Bill based on the White Paper they refuse to alter their decision about the timing. What will the right hon. and learned Gentleman do then?
  Sir P. Rawlinson: I shall not have it. I speak for myself, and I speak freely and vote freely. I should bring it in at the proper time, but if the Government prefer to introduce it when they think it right to do so, they will have to realise that this is a matter about which there has been no agreement, and that it will be wholly wrong for them to take such action.
  Mr. Thorpe: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying that it might be right to introduce this after an election, and wrong to introduce it
  1418
  now. He will be aware that there is a formula suggested for the relationship between the parties. Surely he is not suggesting changing that after the election?
  Sir P. Rawlinson: I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. It would be made operative after the election and after the will of the people had been made known.
  I welcome these proposals. I know that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, do not agree with me, but at least—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I have heard the back benches. I want to hear the Front Benches.
  Sir P. Rawlinson: I am only too well aware of the views of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, but at least we on this side of the House will be able to express our opinions, and make our decisions, without the application of the Whip.
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  9.30 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): I fancy that that muted applause owed more to sympathy than to support—[Interruption.] I was referring to myself.
  The House is now about to move to a conclusion and a decision on an issue which comes up at regular intervals, a matter of high constitutional importance. But I point out at the beginning that the House is about to move to a decision, but not at the instigation of the Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Come off it."] It is moving to a decision because of an Amendment to a conventional Motion "to take note".
  The conventional Motion—I have seen this many times in my experience of the House—is the opportunity to deploy different views so that the Government may hear what the reactions will be and, at the end of the debate, may consider those views, but for there to be no vote. If it had been in the Government's power there would not have been a vote tonight, but a vote is being challenged because my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) wishes, without further consideration, to

  1419
  reject any prospect of altering the composition or the powers of the House of Lords—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO."]. That may not be his intention, but that will be the consequence.
  There is only one alternative to the White Paper which he is seeking to reject, and that is a void. There is nothing else. Or is it suggested that we try again to find a better scheme? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] In that case, I would ask my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite, which scheme, among the many which we have heard over the last two days, are we asked to bring in?
  Is it to be the resurrected Lord Bryce, brought to life by the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke)? Is it my hon. Friend's purpose to divide the House into two parts, in which those of us who are interested in economic affairs are not to take part in foreign affairs, as though there was not interaction between the two? Is it the other schemes which have been put forward for nominating certain people either from the House or outside, or the scheme put forward by the Leader of the Liberal Party for some regional representation?
  The plain truth is—[Interruption.] The Front Benches have had a poor time over the past two days, but what every back-bencher knows is that all they united in on both sides is their disunity. Their agreement in disagreement firmly rooted stands—
  Mrs. Anne Kerr rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. If the right hon. Gentleman does not give way, the hon. Lady must keep her seat.
  Mrs. Kerr: As my right hon. Friend is asking questions, he might like some answers—
  Mr. Callaghan: It would be agreed that the preponderance over the last two days has been wholly in favour of the back benches and against this scheme, so I would suggest that I be allowed to make the case as best I can in the circumstances in which I find myself. At the end, the House will, I think, find it extremely convincing.
  The plain truth is—no one can evade this who tries to destroy this scheme,
  1420
  as my hon. Friend wants to do—that there is no agreement in the House or within the parties or among the parties on what alternative we have. So let us be quite clear; if the Government were to take this away and return with another scheme, there would still be as much disagreement. There might be different schemes and different facets and different fragments who would unite, but there would be no more agreement about any new scheme than there is about this one—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) is quite right. If he believes that the present scheme is not a good one, then of course he will vote against it, and in voting against it he will vote to preserve the hereditary principle—
  Mr. Shinwell: No.
  Mr. Callaghan: Not only that. He will be voting to preserve a Conservative majority in the House of Lords. He will also be voting to ensure that a Labour Government's, but not a Conservative Government's, programme will be under challenge—[Interruption.]—in the last two years of their life. If that is the path of revolution, give me reaction. [Interruption.]
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Callaghan: I know that I am being provocative, but I have been provoked a lot in the last couple of days. No doubt this temporary shifting coalition which has been established in the last 48 hours will be rapidly dissolved after the Division, to the relief of all concerned.
  One cannot evade the issue that the House of Commons must take a decision, at the instigation of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West. One cannot evade the responsibilities which hon. Members carry. If the "do-nothings", plus the "do-mores", have their way, there will be no reform, and that is the simple issue.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Callaghan: I cannot give way. I have a lot to say and not much time in which to say it. This is the simple issue on which the House must decide tonight.

  1421
  In trying to pick out the major issues which have been raised—I have heard nearly every speech in this debate and have listened to some in the other place—I suggest that there are three points with which I should deal, and I will comment on them in turn. The matters which have been raised more than any others are powers, patronage, and the question raised by the Opposition Front Bench today, timing.
  On the matter of powers, there has been no agreement in the House among those who have spoken about whether the Lords' powers will be greater, will be less, or will remain the same, or whether the House of Lord will or will not use them. To some extent, this must be a matter of opinion.
  As to whether the powers will be increased or diminished, I suggest that this is not a matter of opinion but of fact. I cannot go into the dates of the introduction of Bills and what the result will be because I do not have time to do that tonight. But I offer hon. Members my conclusion, having gone into the matter carefully. If one takes an extreme case, then I think it possible that the delaying powers of the Lords will be as long—indeed, might be a week or two longer—under the revised proposals than is the case today. That, in my view, will be the position if one takes an extreme case.
  However, if one take a normal case and if the Government of the day know how to manage their business, be they Conservative or Labour—any Government who do not know how to manage their business do not deserve to succeed—then I offer this conclusion, although I speak subject to correction by other Members of the Conference. In the normal case the delaying power is bound to be much less, in some cases considerably less, and in almost every case less than it is now from the point of view of the Government of the day. For a Labour Government, therefore, this is a net gain. That is the position in regard to Bills.
  As for subordinate legislation—a question which gave rise to the exchanges in the summer—the position for the Government of the day is visibly improved. There is no doubt that the power which the House of Lords has rarely used—indeed, until the Rhodesia Order I do not think that it was used before, but
  1422
  I speak subject to correction; their Lordships discovered that power and used it then—that power will now be almost obliterated. So, from the point of view of any of my hon. Friends who wish to destroy this scheme here and now without further consideration—without giving us a chance to think any more about it in any way—they will be throwing away something which will be of inestimable advantage to a future Labour Government, as well as to the existing one. I am in no doubt—I offer this as honestly as I can—that this scheme reduces the powers of the House of Lords on most Bills and on subordinate legislation.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Callaghan: I will not give way. I have a difficult job tonight [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I will do it best it I am not interrupted.
  I come to the next question, will their Lordships use the powers? We have had two views expressed about this. That they can use the powers there is no doubt, but that is not the point. Will they use them? This is a matter of opinion on which my judgment is no better than that of anyone else in the House, but perhaps I may be allowed to offer it. If we take into account the circumstances which might arise and in which they might use them, my conclusion is that they will be very chary of doing so. First, unlike the situation in the existing Chamber, the majority party in the House of Lords will be comprised of Government supporters, whichever party is in power at the time. Therefore, the first thing one has to presuppose is disaffection among Government supporters and that there will not be an equal reaction among the Opposition. [Interruption.] But this afternoon the disaffection among some of the Government supporters will be counteracted by the support the Government of the day will get from the other side of the House.
  So it does not necessarily mean constitutionally that the Government of the day will be defeated by the House of Lords using its powers. I am on the question of the likelihood of that being done. Because the majority party will be made up of Government supporters, there is a natural presumption that the House

  1423
  of Lords is not very likely to use its powers except in an extreme case.
  The next point I come to on the question of likelihood is the cross-benchers. The Attorney-General produced some interesting statistics about the likelihood of the use of powers there. Like many others who have spoken, I think that the cross-benchers have had nearly as bad a drubbing as the Front Benches over the last couple of days. Whatever we feel about that, the simple arithmetic shows that the cross-benchers do not divide up either for or against a Government as a bloc. I cannot find such a case. They tend to break pretty evenly both ways. What we have to presuppose, as the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) pointed out in his admirable speech this afternoon—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It was an admirable speech. If there is to be this hands across the seas between the Labour and Tory back-benchers, I do not see why I should not get a little as well. [Interruption.]
  I do not know why I should be subjected to all this noise; the right hon. and learned Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson) was not. The hon. Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) raised a point which deserves an answer. I do not think anyone's opinion on it is better than that of anyone else. He said that it is all right because at the moment the cross-benchers do not feel that they can influence the decision, but, he asked, what is to happen when they feel that they are in a position of responsibility and can decide it? I believe this is an essential weakness of the scheme.
  Mr. Hugh Fraser: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Callaghan: I wish the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) would listen with some seriousness. I know that he is sometimes a serious man. I am sure that he has had an enjoyable evening. This is a point which has to be considered and watched very carefully by future Governments. Let me put the underlying point. The underlying essence of the scheme is that the Government of the day have a majority, so if there were a permanent combination of cross-benchers who by voting continuously one way
  1424
  were to destroy that underlying essence that situation would clearly have to be taken into account. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We have had an orderly debate all through. Hon. Members must listen.
  Mr. Callaghan: On those counts my conclusion would be that the powers would be used only rarely, because I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield, West that if they were used more than rarely that in itself would destroy the essence of the scheme which is to give the Government of the day a majority. The cross-benchers' position is one which clearly will need very careful and continuous review.
  On the question of patronage in relation to numbers, I believe that there has been very substantial misunderstanding. I do not accept that there will be a vast extension of patronage in numbers under the scheme. This has been said by practically every speaker, and, with respect, I do not think that too many of them have studied the figures. It is simply not true. I shall come to the question of remuneration and its effect later.
  In terms of numbers, I hazard the view, having looked up all the analyses made of the consequences of this if applied to every General Election since 1906, that the Prime Minister of the day will in future be creating no more peers than have been created every year since the beginning of the century. The average would be roughly the same. It is no good my hon. Friend shaking his head. The figures have been carefully gone into. Take, for example, the scheme if it came into operation now. The table is clearly set out on page 5 of the White Paper. There are at the moment some 95 Labour peers. The number of Labour peers that would be required under the proposals as laid down is 105. So the extension of patronage would amount to 10 peers in terms of numbers.
  Even on the basis of the average number of peers made by the Prime Minister every year since 1964—this is not peculiar to him; I would say that he has used his powers of patronage less than they have been used by some previous Administrations—he will not be making more peers than have been made hitherto. Therefore, I ask my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite not to

  1425
  adhere to the myth that there will be a substantial increase in the number of peers made in the future as against the number made in the past.
  The real strength of the argument appears to lie on the question of remuneration. But what is said in that respect is pretty insulting to hon. Members of this House and to other people in public life. What is said—this is the argument that is deployed openly—is, "If there is a salary attached to these posts, then men who are in the House of Commons now will so conduct themselves as not to offend the Government." My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) told us that the hand was put on his shoulder and he was told that he was of Ministerial calibre. I agree that that remark may well be in order and appropriate, but what effect has it had on his conduct, and why should he assume that anybody else is of lesser calibre than he is? I simply do not accept that hon. Members elected to this House will behave any differently from those who have already either accepted or rejected office. Indeed, if one looks at previous Administrations, it is difficult to know whether it is the rebels or the loyalists who have been promoted most. I look round and see some of the rebels who have been promoted.
  So my conclusion on this is that, in terms of numbers, there is no extension of patronage. In terms of remuneration, I do not believe that it will have the effect that some hon. Gentlemen imagine, unless the quality of men entering this House is much lower than it has ever been since I have been here, and I do not believe that that will be the position.
  I turn to the question of timing. The right hon. Gentleman made the point that timing was the major difference between the two sides. In the Conference, he put in his paper and the matter was discussed fully. He commended the proposals but said that he was worried about the question because he felt that we should not establish a reformed House which would reflect the political situation as it was in 1966. As far as I could see, his main anxiety was possible over-representation of minority parties. He assumed that the House might contain more representatives of the
  1426
  nationalist parties and fewer of the Liberal Party and—this was the burden of his case—that it would be wrong to include voting Liberal peers in a reformed other place when the number of Liberals might be smaller in 1970–71.
  I cannot see that any great issue of constitutional principle arises on that. Would it really matter very much—and I am not seeking to insult the Leader of the Liberal Party—if there were 15 Liberal peers in the Upper House instead of 12? That is really the point the right hon. Gentleman was making. If the nationalists were to secure a small representation, it could not possibly make more than two or three peers difference.
  I was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that he would throw out the whole of the agreed scheme because we might have three more Liberal peers in the House of Lords than we would otherwise. That may not be what he meant, but it is what he said. He hinged the whole of his opposition on the position of the Liberal Party in relation to the rise of the nationalists.
  If, indeed, something else lies behind this more than the position of the Liberal Party, if the fear is that perhaps the Prime Minister today might be creating a number of Labour peers and that if we only waited two or three years for perhaps the return of the Conservatives, when there might be more Tories—and that was the unspoken fear—I can say that it would make practically no difference to the situation.
  One only has to examine the figures again to see that, because the upper limit in the House under this scheme is available. The net impact would be that the Prime Minister would not be making any more Labour peers under the reformation scheme than he would be likely to make, and a Conservative Prime Minister would only have to make a few more than he would otherwise make. I cannot believe that, on consideration, the right hon. Gentleman would want to throw out this reform and this change—which is a drastic change—if he agrees with us on other grounds, merely on this small point.
  I have been criticised because I said this was a bargain. I did not say that it was a compromise. I said that it

  1427
  was a bargain and I adhere to that word. It is a bargain. The essence of a bargain, if is is to last and be successful, is that both sides should think that they are getting something out of it. I know of no other bargain which does not mean that. I think that the Liberal Party gets a lot out of this. The Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Member for Enfield, West think that the Conservative Party is getting a lot out of it. That does not mean that the Government should object. This understanding, or agreement, has elements in it that appeal to all the parties in a number of different ways. I see no harm in saying that it is a bargain when that is what it is.
  On the whole, I prefer to move forward in constitutional reforms by agreement if possible rather than by creating a constitutional crisis. [Hon. Members: "Why?"] I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) that it frequently happens that we need a great constitutional crisis to precipitate this House into action on constitutonal reform, but I do not see anything logical in waiting for a crisis in order to do a sensible measure of constitutional reform. That is what the White Paper would achieve.
  I was asked whether it was the Government's view that it would last and why we had introduced it at a time when the Constitutional Commission has been set up. The Government introduce this as a plan which will stand on its own for some time to come. Whether changes should be made as the result of the kind of change we spoke about earlier in relation to cross-benchers, whether in relation to recommendations by the Constitutional Commission that there should be other forms of entry to the Chamber, it is beyond my power to say.
  The Government are not introducing this as an interim Measure in the expectation that there will be changes; but clearly, just as the Parliament Acts themselves have been changed and revised, so this one is open to change and revision if the good sense of the House of Commons decides that the time has come.
  I think that there was some misunderstanding about the position of Ministers in the Lords. This was raised on a number of occasions.
  Mr. Thorpe: The attitude of many of us depends upon whether this is an interim measure or whether it is a permanent measure. Did I hear the Home Secretary say that he thinks that a future reform is unlikely?
  Mr. Callaghan: No, Sir. I do not think I could add anything to what I said. I think that it is permanent until the House of Commons decides to change it. [Laughter.] What else would the right hon. Gentlemen expect me to say—that it is permanent even if the House of Commons wants to change it? Is that the logical position?
  Mr. Thorpe rose—
  Mr. Callaghan: No, I will not give way. I have one other point to make. Whatever else the Constitutional Commission decides to do, it certainly is hardly likely to recommend a hereditary membership or a permanent majority for one party. That is what this scheme gets rid of. That is what my hon. Friends and other hon. Gentlemen will be voting about in three minutes time.
  I want to say a few words on the misconception which has arisen about the position of Cabinet Ministers. There is no agreement on what has gone into Appendix II of the paper in which this was put; but, as I understand it, the thought there was that it might be that some Ministers might in certain circumstances speak on their own legislation, perhaps in Committee in the other Chamber. That was the thought that lay behind it. [Interruption.] It is no use tut-tutting. That was not the criticism. The criticism which was made was that it was thought that there would be many Ministers transferred from here to the other place. That was not the idea behind it at all.
  The House now has a clear decision to make. It can, if it likes, vote to continue the hereditary principle. It can, if it likes, vote to maintain a permanent Conservative majority. It can, if it likes, vote to leave the House of Lords with powers which could wreck a Labour Government's programme. It can vote for all these things, if it chooses to. That is our part of the bargain.

  1429
  If my hon. Friends vote for the Amendment tonight, they are in fact rejecting everything that is in the White Paper, knowing, as they do full well, that the prospects of any further scheme coming out to which they are likely to agree are negligible. Therefore, I ask my hon. Friends, as the right hon. Gentleman asked his hon. Friends, to vote for the White Paper and against the Amendment.
  Mr. William Hamilton rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the Amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 159, Noes 270.

  Division No. 8.]

  AYES

  [10.0 p.m.

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Orme, Stanley

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Padley, Walter

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Gurden, Harold

  Paget, R. T.

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Barnes, Michael

  Hamling, William

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Barnett, Joel

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

  Pardoe, John

  Batsford, Brian

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Park, Trevor

  Bell, Ronald

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S)

  Bence, Cyril

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Peyton, John

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

  Hay, John

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Biffen, John

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Hiley, Joseph

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Ridley, Hn, Nicholas

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

  Hordern, Peter

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Body, Richard

  Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Booth, Albert

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Roebuck, Roy

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

  Royle, Anthony

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena(H'b'n& St. P'cras, S.)

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Ryan, John

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Campbell, B. (Oldham, w.)

  Jopling, Michael

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)

  Sheldon, Robert

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)

  Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

  Corfield, F. V.

  Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

  Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton, N. E.)

  Costain, A. P.

  Kirk, Peter

  Silvester, Frederick

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Kitson, Timothy

  Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Lee, John (Reading)

  Smith, John (London & W'minster)

  Crouch, David

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Speed, Keith

  Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Stodart, Anthony

  Dickens, James

  Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  MacArthur, Ian

  Swain, Thomas

  Donnelly, Desmond

  McGuire, Michael

  Tapsell, Peter

  Eden, Sir John

  Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross& Crom'ty)

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Emery, Peter

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Macmillan, Maur'ce (Farnham)

  Tomney, Frank

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

  Marquand, David

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)

  Marten, Neil

  Waddington, David

  Farr, John

  Maude, Angus

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mawby, Ray

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Mendelson, John

  Walters, Dennis

  Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Fortescue, Tim

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Foster, Sir John

  Monro, Hector

  Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

  Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh(St'fford & Stone)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Wright, Esmond

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Giles, Rear-Adm, Morgan

  Neave, Airey

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Newens, Stan

  Mr. William Hamilton and

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Mr. Michael Foot.

  Goodhart, Philip

  Nott, John

  Goodhew, Victor

  Onslow, Cranley

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Finch, Harold

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Anderson, Donald

  Fisher, Nigel

  Mallalieu,J. P. W.(Huddersfield,E.)

  Archer, Peter

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Fletcher,Rt.Hn.SirEric(Islington,E.)

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Ashley, Jack

  Foley, Maurice

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Astor, John

  Ford, Ben

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)

  Forrester, John

  Millan, Bruce

  Awdry, Daniel

  Fowler, Gerry

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Moonman, Eric

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Freeson, Reginald

  More, Jasper

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Gardner, Tony

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Baxter, William

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Beaney, Alan

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Benn, Bt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Murray, Albert

  Binns, John

  Gregory, Arnold

  Neal, Harold

  Bishop, E. S.

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Blackburn, F.

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Blaker, Peter

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

  Ogden, Eric

  Boston, Terence

  Hannan, William

  O'Malley, Brian

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Harper, Joseph

  Oram, Albert E.

  Boyden, James

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Bradley, Tom

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Oswald, Thomas

  Braine, Bernard

  Haseldine, Norman

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Hawkins, Paul

  Owen, Will (Morpeth)

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Hazell, Bert

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Parkin, Ben (Paddington, N.)

  Buchan, Norman

  Henig, Stanley

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

  Hill, J. E. B.

  Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

  Bultus, Sir Eric

  Hilton, W. S.

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Hobden, Dennis

  Pentland, Norman

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Hooley, Frank

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

  Price, Christopher (Perry Bar)

  Cant, R. B.

  Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Probert, Arthur

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Pursey, Cmdr, Harry

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen N.)

  Pym, Francis

  Chapman, Donald

  Hunter, Adam

  Randall, Harry

  Coe, Denis

  Hynd, John

  Rankin, John

  Coleman, Donald

  Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Conlan, Bernard

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Rees, Merlyn

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Cronin, John

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)

  Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire S.)

  Crowder, F. P.

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Robinson, Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

  Kelley, Richard

  Rowlands, E.

  Davies G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Sharples, Richard

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Lawson, George

  Short, Rt. Hn. Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Delargy, Hugh

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Silverman, Julius

  Dell, Edmund

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Dempsey, James

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Slater, Joseph

  Dewar, Donald

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Small, William

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Snow, Julian

  Doig, Peter

  Loughlin, Charles

  Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Douglas-Home, Rt, Hn, Sir Alec

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Drayson, G. B.

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Dunn, James A.

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Dunnett, Jack

  McBride, Neil

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

  MacColl, James

  Swingler, Stephen

  Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)

  MacDermot, Niall

  Symonds, J. B.

  Eadie, Alex

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Taverne, Dick

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Mackie, John

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Elliott,R. W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

  Ennals, David

  Maclennan, Robert

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. George

  Ensor, David

  Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain

  Thornton, Ernest

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Tilney, John

  Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Tinn, James

  Faulds, Andrew

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Fernyhough, E.

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  1432

  1433

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Whitaker, Ben

  Wilson. William (Coventry, S.)

  Varley, Eric G.

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Winnick, David

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Whitlock, William

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Woof, Robert

  Wallace, George

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

  Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Weitzman, David

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Mr. Ernest G. Perry and

  Wellbeloved, James

  Willis, Rt. Hn. George

  Mr. J. D. Concannon.

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Main Question put and agreed to.

  Resolved,

  That this House takes note of the Command Paper (No. 3799) on House of Lords Reform.

  ALUMINIUM REDUCTION PLANT (INVERGORDON)
  Mr. Speaker: I suggest that we take the two Schemes on the aluminium industry together, if the House has no objection.
  Mr. Gordon Campbell: We hoped, Mr. Speaker, that they would be taken separately.
  Mr. Speaker: This is a matter for the House. In view of what has been said, they will be taken separately.
  10.13 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Edmund Dell): I beg to move,
  That the Aluminium Industry (Invergordon Project) Scheme, 1968, a draft of which was laid before this House on 6th November, be approved.
  I hope that it will be agreeable to the House if I introduce the projects generally, although I am prepared, of course, with the permission of the House, to answer questions separately on the two Schemes.
  With these Schemes we are launching what is, in effect, a new industry in the United Kingdom. Although the United Kingdom was among the first countries to develop aluminium reduction plants, when two small smelters were built near Fort William around the turn of the century, primary aluminium smelting has not been developed any further in this country. The main reason for this lies in the manufacturing process, which requires large and constant supplies of electricity, and power costs in the United Kingdom were too high. Until now, the pattern of world production has been to erect smelters close to cheap sources of power.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member will help me and that he will not open the debate too wide. We are not debating the whole of the aluminium industry. We are debating two Schemes.
  Mr. Dell: I agree, Mr. Speaker, but it is necessary to give a few words of background because it is part of the argument for these projects that the pattern of world production of aluminium is changing. Unless you permit me to explain that, the House will lack useful information
  1436
  Which justifies the projects being considered.
  I was saying that, until now, the pattern of world production has been to erect smelters close to cheap sources of power, primarily hydro-electric power, rather than to centres of consumption. However, with the development of cheap bulk handling of raw materials and new, cheaper methods of generating power, particularly nuclear power, it is becoming more competitive to produce aluminium close to the centres of consumption, thus incidentally reducing transport costs on the unwrought aluminium itself. Thus the key to the expansion of aluminium production in this country was the price of electricity.
  The Government, therefore, decided—and this was announced in October, 1967—that in selected cases, where it was considered to be in the national interest to supply a new, or possibly to avoid the loss of an existing, very large demand for electricity arising at one place for a particular industrial development, they would authorise the generating boards to negotiate special contracts for long-term supply. It was envisaged that, under such power contracts, the charges for power supplied would be determined by reference to the capital and operating costs of the most advanced generating capacity currently being installed, and that to secure this benefit the consumer would have to enter into a firm, long-term contract, and would be tied to the specified capacity for the lifetime of the contract. The Government authorised contracts of this kind to be negotiated to create new production capacity in the primary aluminium industry.
  The Government invited proposals from a number of aluminium companies based on arrangements of this kind. These proposals were then evaluated by the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation at the request of the Government, and I should like to pay tribute to the way in which the Corporation tackled this job. With the benefit of the advice received from the I.R.C. the Board of Trade carried out separate and individual negotiations with the companies. These negotiations have been successfully concluded and the results of the negotiations are set out in the While Paper.
  In the course of the negotiations we had to consider very carefully whether

  1437
  the companies could provide from their own resources or by commercial borrowing the very large sums of money required for the capital contributions to the generating boards under the special power contracts. We are satisfied that the two companies concerned could not be expected to find these sums themselves, for the two reasons set out in paragraph 16 of the White Paper, Cmnd. 3819.
  Mr. Nicholas Ridley: Could the hon. Gentleman say why it is that the two companies have had to pay this contribution at all to the generating boards? Why did they not get electricity without a capital contribution, like any other large user?
  Mr. Dell: It is because of the nature of the special electricity contract which was worked out by the Government and the principles of which were announced in October, 1967, This has advantages from the point of view of the Government, and it has proved in negotiations acceptable to the two companies. The advantages are, of course, in the capital cost which, in the case of nuclear generation, is a large proportion of the total costs. This is paid as a separate sum and, once paid, is no longer subject to escalation, which the companies have tried to avoid.
  Sir Keith Joseph: Did the hon. Gentleman refer to paragraph 16 of the White Paper? Paragraph 16 does not seem to contain any reasons.
  Mr. Dell: I am sorry. I should have said paragraph 14.1 apologise. We therefore decided that it was appropriate for the Government to lend to the British Aluminium Company and to Anglesey Aluminium Metal the sums of up to £30 million and £33 million respectively, equal to their own capital contributions to the generating boards. Without Government loans of this kind we are satisfied that these two plants could not go ahead. Whether each company will need to draw the whole of the sum provided for in its agreement will depend upon the ultimate capital costs of the power station concerned and on the final proportion of the output of the station that the company uses.
  Part of the loans will need to be advanced to the companies very shortly.
  1438
  Provision will be sought by way of supplementary estimate for those payments due during the current financial year. In the meantime, they will be made from the Civil Contingencies Fund.
  These capital costs, together with the capital costs of the reduction plants, add up to a very substantial sum of money. They represent a major new investment in this country. The primary responsibility for this investment has Iain with the companies from whom the initiative came. They are taking the loans. They will be responsible for servicing them as well as for building the smelters. They have assessed the market for aluminium, the economics of producing aluminium in this country and the outlets that will exist for their aluminium once produced. Nevertheless, before making loans of this size, the Government had very carefully to weigh up the economic arguments for establishing in this country what is virtually a new industry.
  We are the only major consuming country without a substantial home-based production. Our existing primary aluminium production is about 35,000 tons a year. This meets only some 10 per cent. of our present consumption. All the rest has to be imported at a cost, at today's prices, of over £70 million. At the same time, our consumption of aluminium is increasing. Over the past decade it has risen at an annual average rate of over 5 per cent. Even this rate of growth is lower than the average world increase of 10 per cent. a year. Per capita consumption of the metal in the United Kingdom is substantially lower than in North America, and, indeed, lower than in some of the more industrially advanced European countries. Looking ahead, therefore, the value of aluminium consumed in this country is bound to increase considerably above current levels. Provided, therefore, that production in this country can be competitive, there are substantial import savings to be made by producing in this country a very much larger share of our total consumption of aluminium than has been produced heretofore.
  The Government and the I.R.C. went very carefully into the commercial viability of the two reduction plants to which we are making loans. The Government and the I.R.C., as well as the companies, are satisfied that these plants can stand on their own feet, and can therefore be expected to yield import savings. Including

  1439
  the Alcan plant, the three new plants together are expected to save imports of about £40 million a year.
  It is, of course, a welcome additional fact that these plants will be constructed in development areas in Scotland and Wales and, in the case of Alcan, North-East England, that they will create employment during construction, and that there will be significant permanent employment once they are in production.
  Sir Eric Errington: Employment is an important matter, since it involves accommodation, and so on. I cannot see in the White Paper any mention of a liability to make provision for the expected extra employment at these plants.
  Mr. Dell: There is no mention of this in the White Paper. I have mentioned it as one aspect. As the hon. Gentleman will know, these plants are being built in areas with a high rate of unemployment.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: It is claimed by some that this sort of investment does not normally generate additional secondary employment. Do the Government accept this view?
  Mr. Dell: Undoubtedly there will be direct employment in the plant and also a considerable contribution to employment in the service industries as a result.
  I am very glad also that British contractors and engineers have secured for this country a very substantial part of the construction and engineering contracts. All this will improve our knowledge of building such plants, and should enable British construction companies to tender more successfully for the growing number of overseas contracts for the construction of aluminium smelters.
  In short, the Government, having examined the facts, have come to the conclusion that aluminium smelting in this country, as now in other West European countries, can be economic, that there will be a market for its product, and that we should therefore go ahead and realise the import savings that are available. That we are going ahead does not mean that substantial imports of aluminium into this country will not continue.
  1440
  I propose now to deal with a number of questions which have been raised about this project both at home and abroad, some in a more critical spirit than others.
  The first one is whether the special electricity contract in any way puts the interests of other consumers of electricity at risk. I should say at once that one of the factors in mind in designing the special electricity contract was that the general body of consumers should not suffer any loss. The two aluminium companies concerned will pay charges settled by reference to the costs of generation of electricity at the specified station.
  Mr. Peter Emery rose—
  Mr. Dell: If I am to give way at every interesting and controversial point in my speech, I will never get through it. I think that it will be much better if I go ahead with it, and then answer questions which hon. Gentleman wish to raise.
  Mr. Emery: I will come back later.
  Mr. Dell: There is provision for escalation so that, if these costs increase, they should not lead to a charge on other consumers. The contracts represent additional loads which would not otherwise be obtained. Thus, there is no loss of business to the area boards and no need for them to seek extra revenue from other consumers to meet financial objectives. Nor will there be any slowing down of the introduction of new low-cost capacity for the benefit of the general body of consumers. We are satisfied, therefore, that the interests of the general body of consumers have been protected.
  An associated question is whether other major industrial consumers, for example, in the chemical industry, will be able to have similar contracts. Naturally, there have been discussions with other major industries about the terms of supply to high load factor users, but no concrete proposals have been made, outside aluminium, for electricity contracts of the type that I have described. If any such proposals are made, they will be considered, of course, against the criteria set out in the announcement of October, 1967.
  Mr. Emery: I am sorry to press the hon. Gentleman, but he will realise that it is difficult for anyone to make an assessment until there is an announcement of what the unit cost of the electricity is to be in either of the plants. He may not be able to give an exact figure, but can he give us at least an approximation of what the unit cost of electricity is to be for these plants?
  Mr. Dell: I cannot give the House the unit cost of electricity under these contracts. It is a confidential part of the contracts signed between the generating boards and the companies. There is nothing to stop other interested industries which are prepared to accept the terms of the special electricity contracts entering into negotiations with the generating boards if the Government give their approval, as required by the announcement of October, 1967.
  I come now to the international aspects of the problem and particularly to the representations that have been made to us by the Canadian and Norwegian Governments. Let me first emphasise that, as I have already argued, no element of subsidy either from Her Majesty's Government or from other consumers is involved either in the arrangements for the supply of power or in the loans being made to the companies by the Board of Trade.
  The main bone of contention has been the level of investment grants available to the smelters. On this, may I make the following points? First, the level of investment grants and of grants under the Local Employment Acts which may be made to these smelters is no different from those that would be applicable in the case of other industries investing in development areas and meeting the criteria for these grants. Many countries give special incentives to development in their equivalents of our development areas. In any case, investment grants cannot be looked at in isolation but must be considered as part of the whole United Kingdom taxation system. Nor, indeed, has E.F.T.A. found our investment grant system to be contrary to the E.F.T.A. Convention. In any case, under E.F.T.A.—and this is a point to which I will return when I consider the Norwegian Government's case—the context within which investment grants and any other
  1442
  aids have to be regarded is whether they result in frustration of the benefits to be expected from free trade. In our judgment, investment grants will not frustrate the benefit of E.F.T.A. in the sense laid down in Article 13 of the E.F.T.A. Convention.
  The Canadian Government have expressed to us their concern about the changes that the British aluminium project will produce in the traditional pattern of supply of aluminium to this country. But changes are already taking place on a significant scale, of course. Already, Canada has become a much less significant source of supply of aluminium to this country than it has been in the past.
  In 1964 Canada supplied us with about half our unwrought aluminium. In 1967 it was down to about a third. During the same period Norwegian supplies rose rapidly. Much of this change in the pattern of supply has been brought about by overseas investments by Alcan, and by arrangements for obtaining metal from Norway in exchange for alumina. For example, whereas in 1960 Alcan's production of primary aluminium was small overseas compared with its production in Canada, by 1967 production overseas by Alcan and its affiliated companies was over half its Canadian production and was rising rapidly. Indeed, it has estimated that by 1972 its overseas production will be virtually equal to its Canadian production. We welcome Alcan's investment in the United Kingdom. This country has long experience of the fact that manufacture overseas deprives one of an export market in a particular product. But, on the other hand, it creates new sources of income in the form, for example of remittances of profit. This is the common experience of all those who invest overseas.
  A further factor which must, I accept, affect Canadian supply of aluminium to the United Kingdom is that as a consequence of the expansion of its production in this country the British Aluminium Company has sold its holding in the Canadian British Aluminium Company which operates the smelter in Canada and from which the British Aluminium Company at present imports a substantial part of its needs. However, arrangements have been made to dispose of the output of this smelter so

  1443
  that Canadian production will not be affected. Indeed, confidence in the future growth of Canadian production is shown by the fact that work has recently commenced on a 50 million dollar expansion of this Canadian smelter.
  Mr. Ridley rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I wonder whether the hon. Member can help me. Is he talking about one of the two smelters under this Scheme? He can only talk about what is in the Scheme.
  Mr. Dell: I appreciate this. On the other hand, the international implications will no doubt guide the House in deciding whether to approve this Scheme. Concerning the Canadian project—
  Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member opens the Scheme as widely as this, anyone joining in the debate can speak as widely as the hon. Member is speaking.
  Mr. Dell: May I point out that the project we are considering—Invergordon—is affected by the decision of the British Aluminium Company to sell the Canadian British Aluminium Company's smelter, which it has just done. These two facts are intimately related. I suggest that on that ground, if on no other, what I am saying is relevant to the Scheme. I have, however, only now to deal with the comments of the Norwegian Government on this project. I hope then to leave the House to debate the matter further.
  Mr. Ridley rose—
  Mr. Dell: I think that I ought to get on.
  The Norwegian Government has made repeated representations both to the United Kingdom and to the E.F.T.A. Council regarding the British aluminium project. These representations have been exhaustively considered. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has had bilateral talks with Mr. Willoch, the Norwegian Minister of Commerce and Shipping, on three separate occasions, both in London and in Oslo. There have been bilateral talks at official level. A special E.F.T.A. working party has examined our proposals in detail. Extended discussions
  1444
  of our proposals have taken place in the E.F.T.A. Ministerial Council and in the Standing Official Council in Geneva. Thus, there has been no lack of consultation.
  We do not accept that the arrangements we propose include any feature which would be contrary to our international obligations or that we are frustrating, by this project, benefits that Norway might expect to gain from her cheap hydroelectric resources.
  First, let me emphasise that E.F.T.A. is not a cartel. The import of virgin aluminium into this country is duty free from all sources, not just from E.F.T.A. sources. The people who decide the source of the major part of aluminium imports into the United Kingdom are the great international aluminium companies. Six of these are responsible for about 75 per cent. of the total free world production of primary aluminium.
  Mr. Edward Milne: I am sorry to interrupt at this stage, but I cannot follow why the negotiations with E.F.T.A. and the question of the Norwegian aluminium smelting industry has anything to do with the two Schemes that come before us tonight. We have already decided the E.F.T.A. position and the question of the Norwegian aluminium industry. I understood that we were debating the question of the moneys to be devoted to the two aluminium smelting plants.
  Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Member for helping me to try to convey to the Minister in charge of the Scheme what the Scheme is strictly about.
  Mr. Dell: I am afraid that my hon. Friend is not really right. The House has so far decided nothing. The House is tonight, at last, deciding whether loans of Government money shall be made to assist in creating the aluminium smelting project in this country. Up to this point nothing has been decided. In view of the international repercussions of this project, surely the House wishes to have in mind what answer this country has to the complaints which have been made.
  I was saying that the international companies plan their production and marketing on a world scale, and they control

  1445
  most of the aluminium fabricating capacity and thus the outlets for aluminium ingot. Nevertheless, it is our view, a view based on consultation with the companies, a view which we have repeatedly expressed to our E.F.T.A. partners, that, given the expected increase in consumption in the British market, the proposed extension of our industry will still leave room for Norwegian exports of aluminium to us to grow well above the 1967 level.
  To ensure this, and to emphasise the importance that we attach to maintaining friendly relations with Norway, we persuaded British Aluminium and the Anglesey Aluminium Company to reduce the initial capacity of their smelters from 120,000 tons to 100,000 tons. Equally, we have undertaken to review the trade situation with all three companies no later than 1971 before final decisions are taken on the expansion of the plants beyond their initial capacity.
  In any case there is no evidence to suggest that if these reduction plants had not been built in the United Kingdom comparable additional capacity would have been built in Norway. There is in fact much contrary evidence. There are many places in Western Europe other than Norway and the United Kingdom in which today aluminium can be smelted economically. We know that they were considered by the companies as alternatives to the United Kingdom. Had they been chosen, the aluminium smelted at them could have entered the United Kingdom duty free. Fortunately we were able to conclude agreements which brought the industry to the United Kingdom. In short, to have acceded to Norwegian representations on this point would not necessarily have benefited Norway, nor indeed would it have benefited E.F.T.A. It would only have harmed the United Kingdom.
  By virtue of these Schemes under the Industrial Expansion Act we are, together with the companies, establishing what is in effect a new industry in the United Kingdom, an industry designed to meet an important and expanding market, which will bring substantial economic benefits to this country. Not least, I hope that these plants will bring a new era of prosperity to the areas in which they will be established.
  10.38 p.m.
  Mr. Gordon Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I think you will be glad to hear that I intend to be brief.
  I am sorry that the Minister has taken a considerable time, during which he has not given us very much more information than is in the White Paper and the Scheme. I deplore the fact that the Minister did not see fit to give way to some of my hon. Friends during a debate which can run for only a short time, but nevertheless saw fit to give way to one of his hon. Friends.
  The Government announced these smelter proposals more than a year ago. They seem largely to have been actuated by the country's balance of payments position, and Ministers will know that during that period I have pressed the suitability of Invergordon as a site if the scheme were found to be satisfactory, to be viable, and if the Government decided to proceed with it. I have questions to ask about this complicated Scheme, but I am very glad that Invergordon was endorsed by the Government after a period of uncertainty.
  The advantages of a deep water harbour, suitable local geography, and a reservoir of labour commended themselves, and such advantages were, of course, confirmed by the fact that at least two of the aluminium companies were themselves making plans for Invergordon. This should be a great stimulus for the Invergordon area and should help in promoting activity and development in the north of Scotland as a whole. But it also raises problems which need thought and care. One is that some of the best agricultural land in the area is unfortunately needed for the scheme and another concerns the labour and wages problems, which are particularly likely in the first two or three years when the project is being built.
  It is not all plain sailing, as was made clear when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition visited the site in September, when I accompanied him, on a tour of North Scotland. He discussed the effects of this project with representatives of the British Aluminium Company on the spot and also with the local authorities concerned.
  We want to be assured that the Government have, with the best possible advice, including that of industry, obtained the

  1447
  best possible future estimates of world production of and demand for aluminium. It would be a major setback for the Invergordon area if there were over-production in five or ten years, and this caused redundancy or the closing of the plant. Therefore, an assessment of viability is essential to the Scheme. Of course, somewhat similar estimates had to be made in 1961 and 1962 for the comparable project of the pulp mill in another area of the Highlands.
  The loan agreement is before us in draft in the Scheme, but not the power contract. The Minister's reply to an intervention suggested that the power contract is to be confidential, but this is strange, when two clauses of it are referred to in the agreement in the Scheme. Is the whole of the rest of the contract, other than these clauses, to remain confidential? If it has to remain confidential for commercial reasons, I hope that the Government will find some means of making it clear to other industries that if they seek similar assistance and similar forms of contract, they will not be dealt with differently and will receive as fair treatment as the aluminium company in this case.
  I now turn to how the loans are to be related to the power supply element—
  Mr. Emery: If the Government do not inform us of the unit cost, how are we to judge whether in any future power contract the firm is being treated fairly? That is the judgment; what is the unit cost?
  Mr. Campbell: I entirely agree. This is of course the difficulty. All we have is the Government's word, given to us earlier, that the interests of other consumers from the electricity boards concerned will not be adversely affected. But we only have their word and apparently the details will not be vouchsafed—
  The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): In the national interest.
  Mr. Campbell: It can be argued whether it is in the national interest one way or the other—whether the consumers should be able to see clearly that no extra burden falls on them. But that intervention came from the Minister of State, and as the Electricity (Scotland) Bill will be coming before us in Committee shortly,
  1448
  I look forward to questioning him more about the Scottish boards in the weeks ahead.
  I was pointing out that the loans are related solely to the capital cost of the power supply element. At first sight it seems curious that the power element should be more than 200 miles away in Ayrshire, that it should be Hunterston B and that no part of the loan should be related to construction and investment on the site at Invergordon. The Hunterston B station is to comprise two reactors of the advanced gas-cooled type and the first, according to the board concerned, is expected to come into commission early in 1973. What is the Minister's latest estimate of the date when the smelter at Invergordon will start operations?
  The agreement in the Scheme concerns the North of Scotland Hydro-Electricity Board and that board features throughout the agreement. However, Hunterston B is in the area of the South of Scotland Board and is being built by that board. I presume that this is the result of close co-operation between the two boards in Scotland, and this is to be welcomed, although the result is a complicated financial arrangement which affects not only the Board of Trade and the British Aluminium Company but also the five electricity boards in question and perhaps other parties.
  Is this arrangement within the international rules and conventions? Has it been framed, to be directly related to the power element in order to keep it within these rules and conventions? If so, there should be no legitimate objection from Norway. I hope that this development at Invergordon will open opportunities in the area for further development, particularly since there are easy sea communications between Invergordon and other parts of the East of Scotland. This is an important matter, but I will not expand on it now.
  I have been corresponding with Ministers about the position in the immediate future and the need to pay special care to ensure that skilled labour is not drawn away from other industries in the area, particularly in the period of perhaps two or three years, when the smelter is being built, because that could have damaging effects. This risk has occurred elsewhere in Scotland and special arrangements have had to be made to deal with the problem.

  1449
  One way of tackling it is by what is called "Operation Counterdrift", which the Highlands and Islands Development Board began a year or two ago. It consists of the formation of a register of persons who wish to return to the Highlands. I understand that about 7,000 names are on the list. This will be the first real test of whether "Operation Counterdrift" will work. Ministers have referred to this proposed operation when I have questioned them about the labour problems. If skilled labour can be persuaded to return to the area, instead of labour being taken from other firms in the area—firms which are already providing valuable employment—Scotland will benefit greatly. This whole operation must be thought out properly to ensure that labour is not drawn away in the way I have described.
  I welcome the choice of Invergordon and believe that it is the right site. This development is regarded in the area as a great opportunity, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie) will confirm this. Hopes are high, and it is therefore all the more important that the Scheme should be soundly based, should be lasting and, if possible, should lend encouragement to further development in the area.
  10.50 p.m.
  Mr. Edward Milne: I intervene briefly to deal with points about capital costs in the power element in the two smelter plants. I should like to touch on the points made by the Minister of State concerning the E.F.T.A. Agreement and the question of our overall aluminium production capacity in this country.
  I was under the impression from a reply to an Adjournment debate, that the overall capacity originally intended in aluminium smelting in Britain was spread over three plants instead of the two then in production. In relation to the increase in aluminium production capacity, if we agree to these Schemes and provide the capital necessary, we have not only to realise the value of the aluminium smelting industry in import-saving but also to see the job potential and to see that aluminium fabricating plants as well as smelting plants are introduced to give us the job capacity which the smelting plants can provide.
  1450
  In answer to a Question by me, the Minister said that we were already overstocked with aluminium fabricating plants. I should like this point cleared up. Coming back to the capital cost of the power element, when the smelting plants were originally intended for Invergordon, it was not the present company that was to have the plant, but the one now situated on the Northumberland Coast. When Alcan decided to go to Invergordon, the aluminium smelter was to be powered by coal and Northumberland coal would travel to the Scottish coast to provide the plant at Invergordon with the power it needed.
  If it was possible then to have coal used as the means of providing power for the Invergordon plant, I should like to know why we have now moved away from this point. My hon. Friend will probably reply that, Alcan having moved to the Northumberland coast, it is using 1 million tons of coal to fire its aluminium smelting plant there. With that decision we of course heartily agree, but if it is economical for a firm like Alcan to use coal for power capacity on the basis of introducing aluminium smelting into Britain we should need a convincing answer to the question, why is coal not being used at Invergordon, as originally intended, to defray some of the expenses?
  All of us in all parts of the House welcome the introduction of the industry to Britain, not only because of the jobs which the smelting industry will provide, but because of the jobs we believe aluminium fabricating will produce. We shall need a convincing answer to the question, why Alcan at Lynemouth can get coal to power its plant and why the company now sited at Invergordon could not also use coal in view of the extreme difficulties experienced by the coal industry at the moment.
  10.54 p.m.
  Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: I welcome this Scheme. I am glad to note that this brings the project a stage further. I hope that the House will pass this Motion, which will mean that the necessary finance will be provided. However, one point worries some of my constituents a little. Since there is a private contract between the Hydro-Electric Board and the British Aluminium Company, some people are under the impression that there may be

  1451
  a hidden subsidy element in the agreement. I am not concerned about what the unit cost is—I am greatly relieved to know that the two parties have come to terms—but am concerned about the fact that a number of communities in my constituency are not connected up so far. I should be very disappointed if the agreement meant that the supply to them was held up indefinitely. I should like an assurance on the point.
  There is also the question of the inadequacy of the roads serving the area of the project. I hope that this will be taken into account and that the improvements to the roads will not be held up unduly.
  The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) stated that hopes are high at Invergordon. This is true. An industrial project of this size in the Highlands has never been known, and great things are expected of it. It is very important that the work entailed should be proceeded with and that there should be no undue delays. People are already coming to the area. The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn referred to the population counter-drift. Many people of various skills are prepared to come back to the Highlands, and so we hope that there will be no undue delay in getting the project under way.
  With those few remarks, I welcome the Minister of State's statement and hope that the Scheme will be passed.
  10.57 p.m.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: I wish to pose one or two questions about this controversial project. It is controversial because, though welcomed on development area and import substitution grounds, it has been assailed under the terms of the E.F.T.A. convention and on some locational grounds, some suspecting that we might be faced with a wrong decision such as was made by the Conservative Government in the late 1950s in relation to the steel industry by dividing a project between Colvilles and Llanwern, so that we may be faced, as with the steel industry, with the situation that we have too many pockets of small aluminium capacity.
  My questions relate to the total additional expenditure from public funds in
  1452
  relation to this project and the Anglesey project, because, as the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) has said, without the total costs we cannot get the full picture.
  The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing one Scheme at a time.
  Mr. Anderson: In that case, I should like to know what total additional expenditure from public funds is expected in respect of the Invergordon project in relation, for example, to investment grants and R.E.P., and in relation to the expected necessary local infrastructure projects in terms of schools and roads, what additional investment is expected in port facilities for the import of bauxite, and whether there are any other hidden subsidies from public expenditure which are not referred to in the Scheme. For example, are there railway lines kept open in anticipation of the extra business which would not otherwise have been kept open? So that we can have the total picture, can the Minister outline the total costs rather than the £30 million loan contained in the Scheme?
  11.0 p.m.
  Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I hope that the Minister will be able to answer the two questions I ask. Hon. Members on both sides are glad to have this Invergordon Scheme because it is an exciting new development which will bring prosperity and success to a part of Scotland which needs it. My questions relate entirely to the contract for supply of electricity.
  We understand the reasons why the Minister cannot go into the details of the contract price, but, even if we accept this, he is under an obligation to answer questions on vital points. It is indicated in the White Paper [Cmd. 3819] that the cost will be based on production, and we see from paragraph 10 that
  "A feature of such power contracts would be that the charges for power supplied under them would be determined by reference to the capital and operating costs…"
  so we are providing these companies with a substantial sum of money which would enable them to buy a slice of Hunterston B and the costs they pay will be the actual costs of Hunterston B. This

  1453
  appears to be the situation. It is confirmed by paragraphs 10 and 13 of the White Paper. This means that the generality of consumers in Scotland will account for the difference, if we assume a pre-Hunterston B situation. This is something we cannot do. We are affecting the interests of other consumers, because we are depriving them of part of the benefit of Hunterston B.
  Mr. Ridley: We are failing to pass on the benefit to other consumers because they are carrying uneconomic plant which is old-fashioned and expensive.
  Mr. Taylor: I entirely agree. The generality will have to pay the average price of power, less the sales to Hunterston B, so we are making a preferential arrangement for this company. This is something which in principle none of us likes, but hon. Members from Scotland are prepared to make a special arrangement of this sort for a special project in special circumstances. On the other hand, we want an assurance that this will not be general practice, because if the Government were to bring forward a proposal whereby the cheapest forms of power or the cheapest new developments were to be taken away from the generality of consumers, the situation would be serious and would cause even more alarm to us.
  What will be the position in the event of the costs of Hunterston B being greatly in excess of the estimate and therefore the price of the power coming out being in excess of the estimates which are considered now? The experience with Hunterston A was that the final cost of the project was greatly in excess of what was originally envisaged. What about the viability of this project if such a thing happens?
  The Minister of State, Scottish Office, may take the view that, with him in charge, the possibility of anything going wrong should not even be loosely considered. But everyone is fallible. He may be so busy with other things that he will not be able to give the close scrutiny to the project that he wishes. What is likely to happen in what he sees as the unlikely event that costs will be in excess of estimates?
  The Minister of State, Board of Trade mentioned the escalation clause,
  1454
  but we do not know the details. Is it the case that, whatever the price may be, the British Aluminium Company will pay the actual costs stemming from its slice of Hunterston B? If this is so, what will happen if it goes wrong and this affects the viability of the project?
  If this is not the case and the escalation clause does not allow for the full cost, who will pay it? Will it be the taxpayer by means of writing off part of the capital of the South of Scotland Electricity Board? This will mean writing off the costs and changing the figure. The way it is done is to write off capital and change the figures. The other way would be to transfer the additional burden on to the generality of consumers by having an inflexible escalation clause which would not allow for the full economic cost of this slice of Hunterston B.
  The House is entitled to an answer. So are the consumers in the South of Scotland area, particularly since, in Scotland, we have a special problem with fuel costs. As the Minister revealed on Tuesday, the cost of electricity to industrial consumers in Scotland is about 1s. in the £ more than for industrial consumers in England and Wales.
  What is the basis of the escalation clause? What happens if the costings go wrong? Who pays the difference? We are entitled to answers. Most of us are happy at the prospect of this new project, but we and the consumers are entitled to clear answers to these questions, which will not require the Minister to give away details of costings.
  11.6 p.m.
  Sir John Gilmour: It is difficult to assess the Scheme without knowing what the cost of electricity will be. The Minister of State said that, as a result of international pressure, it had been agreed to cut down the size of the smelting plants we are setting up. If our planning operation was right, we must have been planning for the right size of smelters. If political considerations—and political considerations arose in connection with the steel industry, although I would be prepared to accept them there—result in a decision to have three separate plants and then, under international pressure, we cut down the size of each plant, the prospects are that each of them will be too small.

  1455
  This poses a difficult question. Which of the three should we scrap? We have not had enough information tonight to enable us to make up our minds about what the right size of the plants should be. But one place which cannot support a plant that is not of sufficient size is Invergordon, and nothing could do more harm to the Highlands than to set up a plant "out in the blue", as it were, away from the main manufacturing industries and not of sufficient size to be the most efficient aluminium smelting plant in the country. If it is not of sufficient size, it cannot succeed.
  The Government must be certain that the size of these plants means that they will be economic and that they have no reservations. If they are not certain, we shall be doing the economy harm by approving the Scheme.
  11.9 p.m.
  Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: I had intended to speak briefly but the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) will enable me to be even briefer because he emphasised the point I wished to make. Of course we all welcome a project of this kind to the Highlands, although the employment directly created will be rather small. But we have to be sure that it is viable.
  As my hon. Friend said, the Minister has given us little information tonight. Indeed, the only indication the hon. Gentleman gave was the ominous reminder that the size of the projects we are discussing had to be scaled down in response to representations from the Norwegians. Our understanding is that the original proposal was for individual units with outputs of at least 120,000 tons. I suspect that we would be much better off with one large plant instead of three. I do not believe that the Government can make three plants on this scale remunerative. I certainly do not believe that they can do so now that they have scaled down the size. This is a serious proposition which the Government must answer.
  I know that the case of Richard Thomas and Baldwin and of Colvilles and the steel strip mill will be thrown in our faces, as the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Anderson) fairly and legitimately did. I accept that. I have
  1456
  always regarded the split in the strip mill as one of the worst decisions taken by the Tory Government. Now I consider that the Labour Government are doing precisely the same thing all over again, only perhaps on an even graver scale by splitting into 3 instead of into 2. We need some clearer assurance from the Government that they have three projects that can be viable.
  Yesterday I stressed to the Minister of State, Scottish Office, the importance of considering the views of Mr. Goode in all financial matters. I do not think that Mr. Goode would like this Instrument. I do not believe that the Government have shown that any of these projects can be viable. The Minister of State said nothing tonight to allay our doubts.
  11.12 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Emery: Not representing a Scottish constituency, I am, perhaps, in slight disagreement with some of my hon. Friends who, as they come from Scotland, are bound to see considerable benefit for their own areas in the siting of this smelter. It was brave and courageous of them to make the criticisms they did of the division of the smelter into three parts.
  I believe that the total investment that the Government and industry are making, not only at Invergordon but also at Anglesey and in the North-East, is misguided and wrong. It could well be placed in much more remunerative positions and industries for the benefit of the United Kingdom as a whole rather than the purely sectional factor of this investment in this particular industry. We have no bauxite. Our power is as expensive as power is in most places in the world. It is more expensive than it is in areas which produce aluminium. On the whole, the economy can justify this only on an import-saving or a strategic basis. In a war we would not have the bauxite, anyway; we should have to import the aluminium, so the whole industry falls. On import saving, much more could be done. Investing this money overseas would earn a greater amount than the amount of import saving achieved by this investment.
  It is all very well for the Government to say that they will not give us the unit

  1457
  cost of the electricity because this is a commercial contract. This is their defence for not releasing the figures. In other commercial contracts, and in one in which I have an interest—let us take the case of the commercial price of North Sea gas—it was seen fit to reveal the price and it was in the national interest to do so.
  I claim that it is in the national interest that this unit cost should be revealed. We cannot make a proper judgment about the economics of these claims unless we know the Government estimate of this cost. There are many rumours, but whether one takes reports from the Financial Times, the Economist, or The Times Business News, they are all below the cost of 1d. per unit—below the cost to the ordinary consumer. This is a specialised item. If the Government have seen fit to give special treatment, why is it being given to the aluminium industry? Why not to steel, to chemicals or to the production of chlorine, which is a very much greater electricity-consuming industry than aluminium?
  The Government have sidestepped this issue, and unless we know what the unit cost will be we cannot make an absolute judgment. The Government ought to fulfil their obligations, so that the ordinary person can make a judgment. If they do not do so, as The Times Business News said:
  "If the industrial users are to pay less, the domestic consumers must pay more."
  This is the real reason. Unless we get this figure, the Government will be branded as having attempted to push this Scheme through without giving proper information, without giving the true facts.
  11.17 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: I had not intended to speak tonight, because I thought that this Scheme would meet with almost unanimous approval on all sides of the House. It has come as something of a shock to discover, in speech after speech from the benches opposite, that the Tory Party has been attempting to ride two horses in different directions. There was at least a refreshing straightforwardness about the speech of the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) who regards the
  1458
  Invergordon Scheme as misguided and wrong.
  The same tribute cannot be paid to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) whose remarks seemed to be directed to two different audiences. First, for the benefit of his Scottish constituency, he approves the Scheme, then for the benefit of his industrialist hearers he disapproves. He should have done a little more work in attempting to reconcile these differences before he brought his views to the House. The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, in the most petty and trivial intervention, made it unclear whether he approved or not. His raking up of old troubles about proper land use seemed quite irrelevant.
  Mr. Gordon Campbell: It is because I am in favour of this development and am anxious that it should be successful and viable.
  Mr. Maclennan: What the hon. Gentleman failed to make clear was whether he regarded his objections on the ground of land use as being of such moment that the House ought to vote against the Scheme. Like his hon. Friends, he attempted to speak with more than one voice and was guilty of the usual inconsistency which one has come to expect from him and his colleagues.
  This has been a thoroughly disappointing debate in view of the importance of the Measure to the Highland economy and to the development of a new and valuable import-saving industry. Perhaps the most disappointing speech was that of the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), who argued that we should be concentrating our aluminium production in larger units. But when he said that it ought to be moved south he did not say which plant we should give up. Perhaps he would care to volunteer the answer. Should it be Invergordon or Anglesey or Blyth?
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The important point is that we do not want a project at Invergordon which will be too small to be viable, which will land itself in trouble, and which may even have to be folded later. I want to see one large project, certainly in Scotland, but I would rather not have a project which was too small to be viable.
  Mr. Maclennan: It is a relief to hear that. This is a momentous step and an example of the kind of Socialist planning which will restore the Highland economy. I have seen some of the benefits of this planning already. I hope that, with one voice at least in the Division Lobbies, the House will ensure that this Measure is given the support which it deserves.
  11.22 p.m.
  Sir Keith Joseph: The House wants to give the Minister of State the maximum time possible for him to answer the range of questions which have been asked on this important subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) expressed unqualified approval of the scheme from this Box and asked only questions addressed to its viability because of its importance in the area.
  The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) claimed this as an example of Socialist planning. It should be put on record that this whole series of aluminium projects stems from the enterprise of one of the most remarkable business men in this country, Sir Val Duncan, who originally put forward the Anglesey project. I will not try to discriminate between the three firms involved, as maybe others, too, conceived the idea originally, but it is to private enterprise that credit for this wealth-creating Scheme, as we all hope it will be, should be given.
  I have only two questions to put to the Minister of State to supplement those put by my hon. Friends. I have given him notice of them and I hope that we shall receive a clear answer. The first concerns the cost to public funds of the Invergordon project—that is, the capital cost of the investment grant and any capital help given under the Local Employment Act. It would be going too far to ask about R.E.P., which is a continuing cost. Could he relate the cost, when it is given, to the number of permanent jobs which he expects to be provided by the Invergordon project so that we may calculate the cost to the taxpayers' fund per permanent job created?
  My second question is addressed to the loan to the company involved. The Minister of State told us that there would be a Supplementary Estimate, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer was at great
  1460
  pains at Budget time this year to cut down the borrowing requirements from the very high level of 1967. Will the Minister of State tell us by what percentage the borrowing requirements will be increased by the loan connected with Invergordon and how soon the Supplementary Estimate is likely to be presented to the House?
  11.25 p.m.
  Mr. Dell: I have a number of questions to answer and I will go through them as rapidly as possible.
  I am glad that the House welcomes the project, but I am sorry that so many hon. Members opposite found it wrong for a multitude of reasons. We think that this is a great new industrial project which is right and which will bring great benefit to this country.
  I am asked, when will the smelter start operations? It will be commissioned in the first half of 1971 and is expected to reach full capacity in 1972.
  The hon. Gentleman the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) asked me about the situation at Hunterston B, in the south of Scotland Electricity Board area in relation to the North of Scotland Hydro Electricity Board. There will be a parallel contract between the two Boards. He asked me whether the special electricity contract was within international rules. It is within international rules. It is based on the cost of the most advanced generating capacity. This provision is in accordance with international rules, and, as far as I know, no objection is being currently taken to the special electricity contract.
  I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne) as to the possibility of aluminium fabricating plants being located near the smelter. This is, of course, a matter for the commercial decision of the companies, but I am afraid that he does have to bear in mind the fact, to which he himself referred, that at the moment the existing fabricating plants operating in this country are operating far below capacity. Of course, when that capacity is reached, when new plants have to be installed, it will be a matter for the companies to decide whether it is more sensible to put these fabricating plants near the smelter or near the main markets of consumption. He asked me, too, why it was that coal could not be used for the contract

  1461
  which we have under discussion. I should make it clear that the National Coal Board made an approach to the two companies and the companies themselves were able to choose whether they felt they would operate by means of their own generating plant with the assistance of coal or through the special electricity contract.
  There has been a great deal of criticism of the splitting of the total amount of capacity which is being put up in this country. Indeed, hon. Members opposite appeared to think this so serious a criticism of the project as to undermine its viability. I think they are entirely wrong. There is no comparison at all with the position they themselves referred to in respect of the steel mills which were split under the previous Government.
  The position is this. Alcan wished to put up at this stage a plant of 60,000 tons. This they are doing, with a plant which will have a capacity on expansion of 120,000 tons, subject to the agreement we have made with E.F.T.A. regarding the 1971 review. So far as they are concerned—and they have rather more experience of this matter than, I imagine, most Members of this House—a plant of 60,000 is what they wanted. The other two companies would have preferred to put up plant for 120,000 tons, and indeed 120,000 tons would have been for them technically better. However, I must point out to hon. Gentlemen that there are no significant economies of scale, according to the technical information we have, in smelting above 120,000 tons.
  The sacrifice of economies of scale, by reducing to 100,000 tons, is small, and, indeed, by current world standards, a smelter of this size is large. It is entirely wrong, I believe, for hon. Gentlemen opposite to suggest that the viability of this project is in any way imperilled by the fact that it has been split into three separate plants, rather than being, as some have suggested, in one single plant.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether he thinks the new smelter will have any impact on the viability of the two existing smelters at Fort William and Kinlochleven?
  Mr. Dell: It is a matter for British Aluminium, but it is our anticipation that
  1462
  we shall be operating just under 300,000 tons of aluminium, including those two smelters.
  I am asked for information about expenditure on investment grant, on local employment grant, and other matters. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) asked me about this, and my hon. Friend did, too. It has never been the practice of any Government to reveal expenditure of this kind in respect of particular companies. It was not done for investment allowances. It was not done by the previous Government for local employment grants, nor by this Government for investment grants, and I cannot give this information. It may be that the companies themselves will be prepared to give this information; that is a matter for them; but the Government have to preserve confidentiality, and this is a confidentiality which has never been breached.
  It should not be beyond the ingenuity of hon. Members to come to a rough approximation of the sort of assistance that is likely to be given under these heads. The capital cost of the smelters has been published. I imagine that hon. Members could make their own estimate of how that is divided between plant and machinery on the one hand and building on the other. I should not be surprised if hon. Members could make their own calculations, and perhaps they will, but I must maintain confidentiality.
  As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the scale of local employment grants is related to the amount of employment provided. My hon. Friend can work out regional employment premiums from the employment which will be provided by the Scheme. Port facilities, about which he also asked, in so far as they are necessary for the company alone will be paid for by the company. The Ministry of Transport will pay only if there is a development of general interest to importers.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) asked two questions about the electricity contract. He suggested that there was a penalty on other consumers because they were being deprived of the benefits of Hunterston B. This is an interesting matter which could be discussed at length, but I can assure him that this has been gone

  1463
  into with great thoroughness. The boards are required by Statute not to sacrifice the interests of other consumers. With his wide knowledge of this subject, he must realise that there is a series of counter-balancing factors, and that to determine what the British Aluminium Company should pay in order to avoid a sacrifice by other consumers is a most complex sum. This complex sum has been done, and what the British Aluminium Company will pay will not involve any sacrifice by other consumers. One counter-balancing factor is that, whereas Hunterston B now represents the most advanced technology, it will not do so in 28 years' time, and yet British Aluminium Co. will still be tied to Hunterston B.
  The second question asked by the hon. Gentleman was what happens if the cost of Hunterston B escalates. I hope that he does not have too vivid dreams on this matter. The contract contains contingency provisions, and the company is responsible for escalation. The company satisfied itself in the course of long and detailed discussions with the relevant generating boards what were the possibilities, and the company has negotiated the contract and takes the risk of escalation.
  The hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) said that I had sidestepped the position of other industries. On the contrary, I said quite clearly in my opening speech that any industries that thought they could meet the terms could submit an application to the Government for consideration. This applies to the chemical industry and to the steel industry, although the steel industry is far less electricity-based than the aluminium industry. Even special steels which are most highly electricity intensive are far less electricity intensive than aluminium. However, no application has been made by any other industry.
  The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East asked me about the effect of the aluminium smelter loans on the borrowing requirement, and no doubt he has in mind the central government borrowing requirement referred to in the letter of intent to the International Monetary Fund. This requirement is a residual figure; that is to say, the difference between the expenditure, plus
  1464
  lending, and Government receipts. The amount, of up to £19·3 million, due to be issued to the aluminium companies in this financial year would, taken by itself, add that amount to this years borrowing requirement.
  But, because the companies will be meeting part of the costs of the power stations, the capital needed by the electricity boards will be reduced by the same amount. Therefore, the loans to the aluminium companies will be fully offset by the reduction in Government lending to the nationalised industries, and there will be no effect on the central government borrowing requirement.
  With those answers to the questions which have been put to me, I hope that the House will now be prepared to approve the Scheme.
  11.35 p.m.
  Mr. Nicholas Ridley: Hon. Members who have raised questions against these Schemes have been met with a storm of moral disapproval, as if it was unthinkable for those who have to pay these enormous bills to question whether they will get value for their money. My constituents will get no benefit from this vast expenditure and, therefore, I hope that I shall be forgiven for asking what value they will get for this enormous sum of money.
  I have done the calculation which the hon. Gentleman invited me to do about the cost of investment grants for these three smelters. My guess is that it will be £40 million. If I am wrong, no doubt the hon. Gentleman will correct me. Then I read that we are to lend £63 million under these two Schemes to the two smelters. I know that this will come straight on to the taxes. No Government have borrowed money for many years past. Then there will be the cost of the Local Employment Act grants. I do not know what they will be, but possibly they will be in the neighbourhood of £5 million.
  In other words, before looking at the revenue side, I find that there will be a capital cost in respect of the three projects of about £110 million. The Government may tell me that my figures are wrong, of course. This is on the taxes alone. If I am wrong, surely it is beholden on a Government who believes

  1465
  in planning and doing all these things publicly in participation to put the figures before us. Why have we not had these figures? How dare the hon. Gentleman ask for approval to spend figures which go as high as £110 million without telling us the details.
  How many jobs will be created? My guess is a few hundred. We shall not get value for money for the development districts by spending £110 million on perhaps 2,000 jobs.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: My hon. Friend talks about 2,000 jobs. He should recognise that the figure for Invergordon is 600.
  Mr. Ridley: I was talking about the three smelters together. This is not value for money.
  I want to help the development districts, but I am sure that I could create more than 2,000 jobs if I was allowed to spend £110 million in a more satisfactory way. On that ground alone, the project does not stand up to examination.
  Then I look at the revenue side. We are told that the capacity to be provided will be of the most advanced new type. The Minister of State skated over this point. He said that that means that there will be no disadvantage to other consumers. But, if a slice of the newest generating capacity is pre-empted, the cost of carrying the old generating plant is put on to other consumers. It is in fact taking a subsidy at the expense of all the other consumers. The same is true of the Blyth smelter where the Coal Board is reputed to have been offered 3d. a therm for coal. The average cost of mining coal is about 5d. a therm. The top band of pits are producing at 7d. a therm. So other consumers will have to bear the cost to pay for those expensive pits at 7d. a therm and the average of 5d. a therm. Therefore, the subsidy in this case is considerable on revenue alone.
  It is extraordinary when we look at the regional employment premium and this revenue subsidy plus, a subsidy of £110 million, for the Government to tell us that this is not a subsidised project. It is a highly subsidised project.
  The question arises: is this the correct allocation of these resources? We
  1466
  are always being told by the Government's economic advisers that we must not look in terms of taxation, whether we want it up or down; we must look entirely in terms of the correct allocation of economic resources. Yet it seems odd to spend £110 million to create 2,000 jobs on a project which is split three ways, as so many hon. Members have said, and which is, therefore, pretty inefficient and unviable.
  The motive is said to be import saving. I remember in economic debates hearing Government spokesmen say that we must export more and we must not invest overseas. Yet we are here encouraging our competitors to stop their exports and to invest here to keep up our exports. If we are to do this, may I ask what would happen if Australia did the same concerning our exports? This is a policy of protectionism designed to slow down world trade. If it does not pay us—as I believe it does not—to make aluminium here, we are distorting the whole mechanism of trade to save a few paltry imports.
  It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question pursuant to Standing Order No. 2 (Exempted business).
  Question agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Aluminium Industry (Invergordon Project) Scheme 1968, a draft of which was laid before this House on 6th November, be approved.

  ALUMINIUM REDUCTION PLANT (ANGLESEY)
  Motion made, and Question proposed.
  That the Aluminium Industry (Anglesey Project) Scheme 1968, a draft of which was laid before this House on 6th November, be approved.—[Mr. Dell.]
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order. I wonder whether I could question your timing, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My estimate is that we have at least another two minutes to go before the hour and a half—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. I am satisfied that the requisite time has been given to the Scheme.
  11.44 p.m.
  Mr. David Gibson-Watt: I am sure that the whole House regrets that my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) was unable to complete his excellent speech. If I may take the time of the House upon the smelter Scheme which refers to Anglesey, in the Principality of Wales, I am sure that many hon. Members will be interested.
  I shall not argue tonight whether the smelter should or should not be built in the United Kingdom. That matter has been adequately debated in the first Scheme. It has also been argued in the newspapers, in other places, and with our E.F.T.A. partners.
  I refer straight away to the question of electricity price which forms such a part in the final cost of producing primary aluminium. I will only repeat what was said in the final paragraph of The Times leader on 25th July:
  "If too many existing users are allowed to opt out in this way the electric supply industry's revenue will suffer. And that will bring it straight back to the question of raising domestic tariffs—or of running at a deficit."
  My hon. Friends the Members for Honiton (Mr. Emery) and Cirencester and Tewkesbury referred to this very question of price in the earlier debate, and in reply the Minister said that this must remain confidential. I think it is fair to ask how long it will remain confidential, and how long it will be before other industries find out exactly what this price is, and inquire how they will be placed. I cannot accept the argument, which no doubt the Minister will put up, that electricity consumers in the Principality, be they domestic or industrial consumers, will not be involved in any sacrifice.
  We cannot overlook the domestic consumer, but tonight, from the point of view of Wales, and from the point of view of the problems of the development area in Wales, I shall frame my questions under four headings—employment, road communications, fall out, and amenity.
  Anglesey has had a persistent unemployment problem, and the figure has been consistently above the Welsh average of late.
  Sir Eric Errington: Does my hon. Friend know the exact figure for Anglesey? It is about 1,000 or 1,100, and the figure for Holyhead is 300 to 400, men, women, and children.
  Mr. Gibson-Watt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me those figures. I intended to give my figures in percentages. I think my hon. Friend will agree that that is the best way to do it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The hon. Member must address the Chair.
  Mr. Gibson-Watt: I shall be happy to do so, because I wish to say to the House and to the Chair that, on the October figures, unemployment in Anglesey is running at 6·1 per cent., whereas the average in Wales is just under 4 per cent. I do not throw this challenge only at this Government. This has been a problem for all Governments, and anybody who tackles the problem of unemployment in Anglesey must have regard to it.
  The danger of reading and assessing the needs of different parts of the Welsh development area is that in building these huge projects such as the Wylfa power station and the R.T.Z. smelter there comes a time when the construction labour force finds that these large schemes come to an end, and many of the men who are doing this construction are not local people. I think it is expected that the total number of permanent jobs which will result from this smelter is about 700. This is what we were told today. I hope that that will prove to be the case.
  I should like to sound a note of warning, as well as one of hope. The warning is that there is a limit to the number of mammoth enterprises which can come to any one part of a development area. The hope is that we may have an increasing variety of jobs in smaller firms, which will give Anglesey a more broadly based economy.
  I come, next, to the question of road communications. There has been precious little talk about this tonight from the Minister. The Government intend to build a huge smelter in Anglesey producing 100,000 tons of primary aluminium

  1469
  per year, yet we have heard nothing so far—though I hope we will—about communications, which are not of the best in this part of Wales. The sole road bridge across the Menai Strait was built by Telford in the early 1800s. Have the plans which the Anglesey County Council has put forward been considered, in view of the Government's plan for the smelter? Unless they have, we shall be in even more trouble with road congestion in North Wales. I am glad to see the Secretary of State for Wales in his place, since he has responsibility for road and bridge communications in the Principality. If he would sit a little closer to his hon. Friend, he might tell him what plans he has for communications in North Wales.
  On my third point, fall-out, we should like a complete answer from the Government to the anxieties and fears of many parts of the community, including the National Farmers' Union and individuals. We should like to be certain that there is no danger to crops or life.
  Fourth is the question of amenity. Those of us who visit Anglesey from other parts of the country remember that it was once the granary of Wales and the first target for any English king who wanted to subdue the Principality, and that it is one of the most beautiful counties in Wales. We should like an assurance that the whole question of architectural design is considered in relation to a project which will involve 400 acres. Only last week I attended a meeting of the Welsh Civic Trust at Llandrindod Wells, and know that these matters rank high in the thinking of Welsh people.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us about employment, communication, fall-out and, last but not least, about amenity.
  11.53 p.m.
  Sir Eric Errington: This contract is the strangest contract I have ever seen. The things which matter are completely missing, and this is of the greatest importance to Anglesey. I have a limited interest, since I have a house there, but my points are not personal ones. They should be carefully considered, but they do not appear—this is what I cannot understand—in these
  1470
  agreements. What is expected to be the total cost of the Anglesey smelter? The figure of £33 million has been mentioned as the Government's contribution, but we do not know the total cost.
  I interrupted the Minister to ask him about infrastructure. Anglesey is a small but well-built-up town, and it is obvious that there should be something in these agreements to show the responsibility of the company for making proper provision for those who are coming into work on the island. It has been suggested that 700 people will be required, but my information is that more than double that number will be needed. Again, there is nothing in the contract to indicate the number.
  It should be remembered that the Holyhead unemployment figures are high—about 300 people are out of work, which is a high percentage for an area of this size—and that about 1,100 people are unemployed in Anglesey as a whole. The agreement does not explain anything about the people to be employed or what accommodation will be provided for people coming from other parts of North Wales.
  The road problem, particularly at the bridge, is a serious one. A long jetty is to be pushed out into the bay some miles along the coast so that burnt carbon may be disposed of without harming the lovely countryside and beaches of Anglesey. What, if any, agreement has been reached on these matters? There does not appear to be even a formal agreement to show how the money in question will be spent and what the company will do to add to the amenities of the area once the smelter starts operating.
  11.58 p.m.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: I was concerned a short time ago to delay the House for two minutes because I have only one point to make, and I could have made it then in two minutes, so that by now I could have been home and in bed.
  The Minister of State, who is within earshot of those who advise him, should take careful note of the constituency matter I wish to raise, since it will be made to him time and again from the

  1471
  point of view of Peterborough. The Scheme is
  "…made under the Industrial Expansion Act 1968—"
  and
  "authorises the Board of Trade to provide financial support by way of loans up to an aggregate of…"
  many millions of £s. Under this Instrument we will be spending about £33 million and under the Scheme for Invergordon we will spend more than £30 million. My constituency question is whether any thought will ever be given—or can be given under this Instrument—to doing something of the sort for Peterborough.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to prolong beyond two minutes the time that the hon. Member intended to delay the House, but I fear that he cannot raise that matter on this Instrument.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: I wish to say on this Scheme that perhaps the Government are spending this money in the wrong place. It should be in their minds that there are other places in the United Kingdom and that Peterborough is an ancient city which they are turning upside down so that it can take London's overspill. That may be for good, but if it is not properly done it will be for ill. To make a success of the Scheme the Board of Trade could see that under this Instrument there is industrial development in Peterborough to take the overspill there. I have put this question to the hon. Gentleman before. I have asked why because of its special circumstances Peterborough cannot be treated as a development area, and I have been told that Peterborough will be given the next priority.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Member has made his point, and he ought to cease now or I shall have to rule him out of order.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: I merely wanted to tidy up the package and to say that if under these two Schemes £60 million can be loaned and used in this way, the Government should give some thought—I hope they will—to Peterborough, which is acceding to the Government's request to be a good neighbour to London.
  12.2 a.m.
  Mr. David Lane: I am not asking the Government for an aluminium smelter in Cambridge. I declare a personal interest in that for several years I have spent my summer holidays near the Anglesey coast, and I wish Anglesey and its people well.
  I wish that I could give an entirely unqualified welcome to the Scheme before us, but I must express a number of reservations. It is extremely unsatisfactory that we are having to discuss all this business, with very many major matters of policy involved, around midnight. The issues raised by these two Instruments—and there may be others to come later on this subject—deserve a full day's debate. I am extremely sorry that the Government have not seen fit to provide it. This is an unsatisfacfactory chapter in a rather unsatisfactory story; ever since the rash statement of the Government in September, 1967, they have been trying to rescue a semblance of respectability for the scheme. They come before us now, not "trailing clouds of glory", but clouds of uncertainty, and I want to refer to some of those clouds.
  The White Paper and the Schemes are based on the Industrial Expansion Act. Those who took part in the debates in Committee on the Bill remember the assurances which were then given by the Government, for which we pressed, that in any scheme of this kind the House would be given the fullest relevant information. We were told in particular of the advisory committee which was provided for under the Act and which, according to the plausible words of the Minister of Technology, would play a very vital part in appraising schemes of this kind.
  What has happened to that advisory committee which was to be set up under Section 5 of the Act for the purpose of advising the Minister? Has it expressed any views upon these schemes? The White Paper says nothing at all about it. Admittedly, in his opening speech tonight the Minister of State said that the Government had had the benefit of advice from the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation. If whoever is to reply to this debate says that the advisory committee has not had time to express a view on these Schemes, can we be

  1473
  told that no such schemes will be brought before the House in future until the committee has looked at them and the House has been informed of its views on them?
  My second question concerns the very scant information given in the whole of the White Paper and in what we have been told from the Government Front Bench about the commercial prospects of the schemes. My hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) mentioned them at the beginning of the previous debate. They were also touched on by the hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne). As I read the arithmetic, the Government are now providing for Schemes which by the mid-1970s will add a total 360,000 tons a year to the aluminium capacity of the country, yet when the Government first spoke of these Schemes a little more than 12 months ago they expected that it would be 240,000 tons.
  The Government have upped their bid by 50 per cent. in a matter of 12 months. This deserves more explanation than we have had so far tonight.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going wide of the Scheme that we are discussing. He is bringing in other plants. We can discuss only the plant in the Scheme.
  Mr. Lane: I will confine my point to the plant in the Scheme, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is another aspect of the commercial field in which the information before us is very inadequate—competitiveness.
  The capacity of the Anglesey plant is 100,000 tons. The Minister admitted that it is 20,000 tons less than was originally envisaged. He said the difference in unit cost efficiency was very slight. I am not asking about pence per ton, but can whoever replies to the debate be a little more forthcoming about the apparent sacrifice in unit cost efficiency that we are accepting, presumably for the sake of getting Norwegian approval?
  I turn to the implications for other sectors of the economy, particularly fuel policy.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot turn this into a wide
  1474
  general debate on fuel policy. He must confine himself to what is in the Scheme.
  Mr. Lane: I will try to relate it more closely, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to what is said in the Scheme about power contracts. I regret that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power, who has been here sphinx-like in his usual way, has now left the Chamber. We have tried to get some information in the past but I must try again this evening. I press the Government to tell us a little more about this from the point of view of other users of electricity. The Government have virtually admitted that if we pass the Scheme we are providing a special deal for the aluminium industry. They have told us that they cannot state the cost. But can they tell us whether there is any profit element in the operating costs that the aluminium company has to pay for the generating plant? This is very relevant to the capital contribution it is being required to make. All we have to go on is rather vague phrases in the White Paper about selected cases and special electricity contracts. What views has the electricity industry as a whole put to the Government on this proposal? The House is entitled to know.
  Other users of power have every right to ask why the aluminium producers should be put in this preferential position. If this kind of scheme is fair, as the Government have tried to justify it to us, for new industries being started from a green-field site, there may be justification for it in certain cases for existing industries.
  Two have been mentioned already, and I had intended to mention them—the chemical industry and the steel industry. Both these well-established industries are heavily dependent, not perhaps quite to the extent that the aluminium industry is, on power; both are exporting industries, and both are import-saving industries. The Minister said earlier that there were no proposals from these others comparable to the proposals in the Scheme but that the Government were prepared to consider them.
  Have the Government had any representations from the chemical industry—the House is entitled to know—about power supply under these Schemes? Also, would the Government favourably consider a scheme from the British Steel Corporation for an electric-based cold

  1475
  melting plant on the Thames Estuary—it has often been talked about—which would take large-scale electricity in the same way as the aluminium smelter to which this Scheme relates?
  Finally, there is another uncertainty that we ought to have cleared up before we pass the Scheme. It is about the whole attitude of the Government to the private generation of electricity by users for their own use.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is out of order.
  Mr. Lane: I shall pursue that no further, Mr. Deputy Speaker, except to say that if the Government are to get these Schemes tonight they have a plain and urgent obligation to the House and industry generally to clear up as soon as possible some of the uncertainties that my hon. Friends and I have mentioned.
  12.10 a.m.
  Mr. Tudor Watkins: I am glad to have the opportunity to intervene because otherwise, no back-bench Member from Wales will speak, and I welcome the Scheme. The points made by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) were pertinent. I join with him on his amenity point, because Anglesey is a picturesque and beautiful island. These days, engineers will watch that aspect, but it would be as well for the Minister to say something about it.
  I welcome the project. I am a frequent visitor to Anglesey and I know the conditions of unemployment which have existed there for many years. Anything that will alleviate unemployment, even if they come from other countries to build it, is welcome. I hope that the people required to man this great development in future will be local people, but if there are better people than the Welsh to man it, I have no objection.
  Is the Minister satisfied that all objections have been met? I gather that there are no objections now from Anglesey County Council, from Holyhead Urban Council or the neighbouring district councils, and none from the National Farmers' Union, but there may be a little objection from the Farmers' Union of Wales.
  Sir E. Errington: There are certain considerations that have to be fulfilled before objections are withdrawn on certain matters. One I mentioned was the disposal of carbon at sea, requiring it to be placed in such a way that it is not on the sea shelf and would spoil the beaches. They have to be carried out and approved, so it is not quite correct to say that there is no objection. There is a conditional objection.
  Mr. Watkins: I appreciate the hon. Member's intervention. I understand that there were objections at the beginning. If there still are, I am sure that the Minister will see to them. My information is that the overwhelming number of these who had objections have changed their minds and I hope that the project will be accepted.
  12.13 a.m.
  Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I will not inflict on the House the first part of the speech I intended to make, because I have already done that on the Scottish Scheme and I will terminate briefly on Wales, because this is the one opportunity left to me within the rules of order.
  I was rather frightened to hear some of the things said by my hon. Friends. I said that I was not sure we were getting value for money in the matter of jobs in unemployment districts and I was a little frightened to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) talk about "operation counter-drift".
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member is wide of the Scheme we are discussing.
  Mr. Ridley: I am coming directly to the Scheme.
  I wanted to refer to a comment which you did not challenge, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when it was made from this side, that there was a shortage of skilled labour in Invergordon and that he hoped that the project would bring back skilled labour from other parts. Now I hear that foreign labour will have to be imported to build the smelter in Anglesey. The talk has been of building smelters in these districts to create jobs for the unemployed and now we are told that it is not jobs they want to import, but people.
  Mr. Gibson-Watt: My hon. Friend has misheard me. I referred to permanent jobs after the smelter had been finished and the imported people had gone away. I gave a figure of 700. I may be right or wrong.
  Mr. Ridley: I am relieved to hear that my hon. Friend was referring to construction jobs, but in the Scottish case there is no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn was advocating the return of Highlanders to the Highlands to fill the job we are at such pains to create.
  This proposal is standing economics on its head. For a Government who believe in planning seriously to advocate vast expenditure of public money, breaking our international agreements and giving a heavy subsidy element so as to create jobs for people who do not need them, is carrying planning a bit far even for a Labour Government. I hope that we shall have a great deal more information before these projects go ahead. We want to know what jobs there will be, what the cost will be, what the uneconomic part of the running costs will be, and so forth.
  I spared the House earlier any mention of the subsidised rate of interest of 7 per cent. and the details of roads, ports, harbours, bridges and other ancillary investment which will be needed in attendance with the smelters. I was able to make the subsidy £110 million without doing that. This Scheme is against the spirit of free trade. Whether it is against the law of E.F.T.A. is not so important, but the subsidy of £110 million plus a running subsidy is bound to frustrate the easy and uninterrupted flow of trade between E.F.T.A. countries.
  It is no good the Government pretending that they can bludgeon the Norwegians out of this. Whether or not they win the argument, this Scheme is definitely in breach of the spirit of free trade. It is in the interests of this country to have free trade. We are in E.F.T.A. We want to join the Common Market and other trading organisations. It is not in our long-term interests for us to do things which cause those with whom we trade to suspect our good motives and to cease to trust us. The Government must be more candid. They must admit that this is in breach of the E.F.T.A.
  1478
  Agreement and a protectionist measure and that the subsidy element makes economic nonsense. They must give a better justification for the Scheme than the Minister has so far given.
  12.17 a.m.
  Mr. Derek Page: The question of the future use of our power resources is involved with the Scheme. Reference has been made to the subsidisation of the Anglesey project. The North Sea gas now coming into production will, within a few years, be available in a quantity far more than adequate for domestic supplies and will then be looking for industrial outlets.
  The biggest aluminium plant in the world, on the seaboard of Texas, works on natural gas at a price equivalent to about 2d. a therm, which is not much below the price at which gas is being landed here. Bearing in mind the very large quantities of gas in bulk for a bulk industry, such pricing becomes feasible for us. While I do not begrudge this new project to Anglesey, and recognise its necessity there, I hope that the right of the East Coast—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot raise that matter on this Scheme.
  Mr. Page: If my hon. Friend the Minister hopes to see hon. Members, particularly East Anglian Members, in favour of this Scheme, I trust that we shall have assurances that our hopes for North Sea gas will not be frustrated.
  12.19 a.m.
  Mr. Peter Emery: I did not rise before, because I felt it only right to allow my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) to finish the speech he got only half way through when he was forced to stop because of the time factor on the Invergordon Scheme. I would say to the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Derek Page)—and here I declare an interest—that he has an interesting point on the question of a potentially much larger power factor. That is not relevant at present.
  I am concerned at the fact that the Government have seen fit, having made a general speech on the previous Scheme, to move this one formally. I do not give the Scheme an unqualified welcome.

  1479
  It is disturbing that once again no real facts or figures have been given in support of the Scheme. It is not right that the Scheme should go forward without the Government understanding that they are asking too much of the House if they do not produce facts and figures in support of the Scheme.
  What are the unit costs of electricity for this contract? I do not believe that I shall get an answer to this question. I did not get an answer on the previous Scheme, not for the reasons the Minister gave. I believe the reason was that the Government do not know. They cannot nail their colours to the mast and give a definite answer, because the capital investment for this plant is likely greatly to increase in the period ahead. [Interruption.] It may be a yawning matter for the Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar), but it is not a yawning matter for the taxpayer who has to provide the money.
  The Government cannot give us the facts because the budget cannot be specifically qualified at this moment. Any unit cost factor they now announce is likely to be disproved in a number of years. I repeat my accusation that they cannot give us the facts because they do not know.
  I make one other accusation. I believe that it will prove that the fuel and power produced for this project, as for the previous one, will be at a subsidised cost. This is a prediction, but it is important to our E.F.T.A. partners and to our friends in Norway that someone has had the guts to say that we believe that this Scheme is going forward at a cost for fuel which must on any ordinary consideration be a subsidised one.
  What will be the interest rate on the main sum? Clause 10 of the Agreement provides that the interest rate on overdue payments will be 5 per cent. or 1 per cent. above Bank Rate. Normally there is a penalty for overdue payments, in that the rate on them is greater than the ordinary rate. Any reasonable man would conclude that the rate of interest for payments made on time will be well below the rate of interest on overdue payments. If it is, we come back to the subsidisation factor on the interest rate. Can we be told this? Is this a commercial secret? Surely not. Other industries
  1480
  have the right to know at what rate this loan is being made.
  Surely the country has the right to know what the Government consider to be the total? I do not mean just the £33 million in this Scheme, but the total projected cost for the whole of the Scheme. Surely there are some figures? I do not mind if they give us just an estimate. The House has the right to know what they consider this estimate to be. I do not get any pleasure in speaking—[HON. MEMBERS: "Humbug."] Hon. Gentlemen opposite may shout "humbug", but I do this only because it is essential that someone does so. I believe that most sincerely. If hon. Gentlemen are sincere in their speeches, they should give credit to other hon. Members, from whatever part of the House, for being as honest in their approach. I do not enjoy saying this, because I do not like having to say to a foreigner, "I do not like the approach my Government are making, but they are making this approach". Someone has to speak up clearly, and it is for that reason that I have done so.
  12.27 a.m.
  Sir Keith Joseph: Before the Minister seeks to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to sum up one or two points and put some questions. As the House will realise from the well-informed speeches made by my hon. Friends, there is a very nice balance of argument here. We all understand the exciting prospects opened up by a home-based aluminium industry. We welcome the permanent jobs that are to be created, and we hope, the jobs that are to follow in Invergordon and Anglesey.
  No one can tell whether the resources poured out by the taxpayer are better used in this way in the national interest than if they were used in some different way. There is nothing wrong in expressing some doubt, as some of my hon. Friends have done, while welcoming the benefits. Private enterprise suggested these investment schemes, based on the investment grants made available through Government policy in the development areas. I must ask the Minister whether he is aware that the Opposition have already suggested that there are better ways of serving the development areas, on the one hand, the grey areas, on the

  1481
  other, and the national interest as a whole, than the present highly distorted and very expensive use of taxpayers money by way of the present pattern of investment grants.
  That is not for this debate—[Laughter.] The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) has been laughing continuously throughout the debate. I do not think that it is the job of a Parliamentary Private Secretary to a Minister, who is treating the House with great courtesy, to provide a constant commentary of giggles. I am sorry to have to hit the hon. Member in this way from the Box, but it has gone on continuously for the last two hours.
  The pattern of encouragement for the development and grey areas is not for this debate, but will perhaps be before the House when the Hunt Committee has reported.
  I want to develop the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) about private generation. At the heart of this Scheme is the power contract. It is common knowledge that the original proposal for the Anglesey smelter was based, as regards power, on a shared use of what was then proposed to be an expanding power supply for Government facility. That proposed expansion of a power supply for a Government facility has, I believe, been dropped, and the promoters of the Anglesey smelter were forced to seek the power which they required in another way.
  The question which my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge probably wanted to put to the Government, and which I will put, is whether the known distaste of the Central Electricity Generating Board for private generation led the Government to refuse an investment grant for private power generation if the promoters of the Anglesey smelter ever requested such a facility from the Government. We do not know whether the promoters requested the right to have an investment grant for a private power supply, but if they requested such a facility, did the Government or did they not refuse an investment grant?
  My second question is, again, about the borrowing requirements. The Minister told us—I presume that it is true of Anglesey as it was of Invergordon—that there will be no extra borrowing on account
  1482
  of the loans to be provided to the two companies because, he said, those loan projects will exactly offset lower expenditure by the C.E.G.B. or the Hydro-Electric Board in Scotland. Will he tell us whether what is happening is that the spare margin of capacity in the grid supply is therefore being reduced? We see from page 4 of the 1967–68 Report of the C.E.G.B. that slower growth of electricity demand, mainly the result of the general economic slowdown, has led to load forecasts for the early 1970's being reduced.
  What is happening—I ask the Minister for confirmation—is that, the sale of power having fallen because of the slowdown in industrial activity, the Anglesey power will come out of the existing grid supplies, thus reducing the spare margin of capacity, and will not involve any special additional building. Is that the explanation for the offset from C.E.G.B. expenditure of the loan being provided to the Anglesey promoters? If so, it explains why the borrowing requirement is not being increased.
  I repeat that we wholeheartedly welcome the increase number of jobs which will be brought to Anglesey. That does not prevent us from putting the questions which my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) put from the Box about such consequential issues as transport, communications, fall-out and design or the questions which my hon. Friends put about the dilemma between free trade, on the one hand, and development area policy and import substitution, on the other, with which this Scheme faces the Government and the House.
  12.33 a.m.
  The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Edmund Dell): I will deal with the questions as rapidly as I can, first, those put by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph). He asked whether any objection by the Central Electricity Generating Board led to the Government refusing investment grants in respect of earlier schemes put forward for the smelting of aluminium in this country. We have always made it clear that in giving investment grants to generating stations we should take account of the position of the public supply system. There has never been any question about that. But

  1483
  in the case to which he refers the decisive consideration involved was that what would have been required was a very large private power station, and there was no way of disposing of the surplus capacity which that large private power station would have available to it.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked about borrowing requirements. As he said, the effect would be to reduce the spare margin of capacity in the C.E.G.B. system. This, of course, means that in the current year there is no additional borrowing requirement, but, of course, equally, as demand builds up, as that capacity has to be replaced, because it has been allocated to this particular project, there will be additional demands on the Central Electricity Generating Board.
  Mr. Emery: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, and I thank him for giving way, but I find myself in a dilemma. He says that spare capacity to provide generating plant could not be used. The fact is that spare capacity normally goes into the grid, and we take on the grid at times even electricity from Paris. Why would it not have been possible for this capacity to have gone into the grid in the normal way and to have gone anywhere throughout the country?
  Mr. Dell: I think that it is a rather different proposition, if it is being suggested that an enormous power station, far larger than that required for the aluminium smelter itself, should be built to supply the grid, and to supply the grid with a very much wider margin.
  Sir K. Joseph: The Minister, for once, is not being coherent. Why should the promoters of the Anglesey smelter have wanted a power plant so much bigger than would be justified for their own use?
  Mr. Dell: This, surely, is the whole essence of the problem. What we are dealing with here is nuclear generation; we are dealing specifically with an advanced gas cooled reactor, and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, they become most economic in very large sizes. I think that that is the answer to the point he is now making.
  I was asked about the employment which would result from the smelter at Anglesey. The answer is that 2,000 jobs will be provided during construction and 700 permanent jobs thereafter.
  1484
  Regarding road communications, there is, of course, a road diversion on the A5 currently going on, being paid for by the company. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, on 15th October, 1968, referred to his road proposals for North Wales and they are relevant in this respect.
  I was asked about fall-out. Assurances have been given regarding the treatment of industrial gases from the reduction plant at Anglesey in accordance with the advice of the Alkali Inspectorate.
  I was asked about amenity. May I express my own very considerable personal interest in the preservation of amenity in the case of both projects. Indeed, I have personally pressed this point very much on the companies, and I know that my right hon. Friend has this matter very much in mind himself. Assurances have been given in this respect, too, and I would certainly think that they should be adhered to, and by any pressure necessary to ensure that they are.
  Mr. Gibson-Watt: Would the hon. Gentleman say something about the bridge? It is not the only question, but it was not made clear in the Secretary of State's statement.
  Mr. Dell: I cannot say anything about the bridge, but I will ask my hon. Friends at the Welsh Office to deal with it in correspondence with the hon. Gentleman.
  I was asked about costs. The capital costs of the smelter have been announced at £45 million. The loan we are dealing with is £33 million.
  The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) asked what had happened to the Advisory Committee under the Industrial Expansions Act. As he knows, it has been appointed. It did not consider this particular project. This project predated it. All the assurances, given during the passage of the Bill, in respect of the Advisory Committee will, of course, be fulfilled.
  I was again pressed about the position of other industries. I really think that I have dealt with that point exhaustively, and that if hon. Members who are interested will look at what I have said they will find that I have dealt with the questions they raised.

  1485
  I do not object to the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) or the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) putting questions about this project. They are fully entitled to do so; indeed, they would be failing in their duty if they felt that they must put these points and did not do so. However, I think that they are wrong in their judgment. This project will be of very great benefit to this country. It is not subsidised. It is not in breach of international agreement, and it has not been held to be so.
  I hope that, with these answers, the House will be prepared to accept the Scheme.
  Mr. Derek Page: On the point I raised with the Minister—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already ruled the hon. Member out of order and, therefore, I cannot allow the Minister to reply.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Aluminium Industry (Anglesey Project) Scheme 1968, a draft of which was laid before this House on 6th November, be approved.

  FUGITIVE CRIMINALS
  12.40 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Elystan Morgan): I beg to move,
  That the Fugitive Offenders (United Kingdom Dependencies) Order 1968, a draft of which was laid before this House on 5th November, be approved.
  The Fugitive Offenders Act, 1967 governs the return of offenders from the United Kingdom to other Commonwealth countries. For these purposes an offender is a person who is accused of, or is alleged to be unlawfully at large after conviction of, an offence which is a returnable offence under Section 3 of the Act.
  The term "Commonwealth countries" means both the independent countries of the Commonwealth and the Dependencies of the United Kingdom. Under the Act, our Dependencies are deemed to include not only the Colonies proper, but also Associated States of the West Indies and the countries in which Her Majesty has
  1486
  jurisdiction or over which she extends protection.
  The provisions of the Act apply automatically to the Colonies proper and the Associated States. The return of offenders to the independent countries of the Commonwealth is, however, dependent on those countries being designated by Order under Section 2(1) of the Act, and this has been done by the Fugitive Offenders (Designated Commonwealth Countries) Order of 1967, supplemented by two similar Orders in Council in 1968 relating respectively to Mauritius and Swaziland on those countries gaining their independence.
  Similarly, for the provisions of the Act to apply to the return of offenders from the United Kingdom to a Protectorate or a protected State, an Order in Council is required to be made under Section 2(2, c) of the Act, specifying the country concerned. The draft Order in Council now before the House thus applies the provisions of the Act to the return of offenders to the British Solomon Islands Protectorate, Brunei, the New Hebrides and Tonga.
  It should be made clear that this does not initiate arrangements for the return of offenders from the United Kingdom to those countries, for such arrangements have previously existed under the provisions of the old Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, which the Act of 1967 now repeals and replaces.
  There are a few minor modifications to the basic provisions of the 1967 Act, but they are only such as are required to meet the needs imposed by certain features of the political and judicial structures of the countries concerned. Thus, in relation to Brunei, the New Hebrides and Tonga, the references in the Act to the Governor are inappropriate, and Article 2 of the Order provides accordingly for their modification. In the case of Tonga, for example, references to the Governor are to be construed as references to the Premier of Tonga.
  Secondly, Article 3 takes account of the fact that the New Hebrides is a condominium having, besides a British court, a French court, a joint Anglo-French court and native courts. Section 3(1) of the Act has therefore been modified to provide that a person shall be

  1487
  returned to the New Hebrides only if he is liable to be tried there, or has been convicted, and is at large following conviction, by the High Court of the Western Pacific or the Joint Court.
  If approved, the Order in Council will be made together with a Commencing Order under Section 22 of the Act which does not require an affirmative Resolution, bringing the relevant provisions of the Act into operation as regards Protectorates and Protected States.
  12.45 a.m.
  Mr. Antony Buck: We are grateful to the Minister for his clear and relatively brief delineation of the effect of the Order. In essence, it makes provision for the return, in appropriate circumstances, of offenders who have prima facie been guilty of an offence in their home areas and have come to this country. It deals with such romantic places as the British Solomon Islands, Brunei, the New Hebrides and Tonga, which has a special place in our affection for a variety of reasons, not least the high esteem for the late Queen of that territory.
  There are not many matters on which I need detain the House. The first is to point out that this Order and the Act on which it depends are, in their essence, reciprocal. The Order provides for the return of people who have come to this country from the places that I have mentioned allegedly having committed offences in their countries of origin. There will not be a flood of them; it will not often arise that an offender will come here from Tonga. But the essence of international relations concerning fugitive offenders is reciprocity, and I would be grateful if, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the hon. Gentleman could tell us the position relative to the territories with which we are dealing.
  Are there similar arrangements whereby, if any of our alleged offenders makes his way to somewhere like Tonga, he will be returned? Have these countries brought in similar Measures? If not, has the intention been expressed to do so?
  My next point is that there have been other Orders relating to other Dependences
  1488
  and territories. Is this the last that we can anticipate? What, for example, is the position concerning the dependent or quasi-dependent territories in the Gulf area? It would be inappropriate to refer to Rhodesia at this stage, because that is outside the ambit of this discussion, but there are other Dependencies. Is it intended to bring forward future Orders dealing with them?
  The Act on which this Order is based is somewhat unusual in that it gives the power, by Order, to modify the whole scheme. One looks carefully at an Instrument which, by its format, can alter the basic legislation on which it depends. This has been done in the paragraphs to which the hon. Gentleman referred only in relatively minor matters, I think, and I would be grateful for specific confirmation of that.
  Finally, any further words that the hon. Gentleman can say about the High Court of the Western Pacific would be of interest. I have never heard of the court. It sounds very romantic, and there has been a reorientation in my ambition in that I hope one day to be briefed in that court. It has been thought appropriate to make specific reference to it, and anything that the hon. Gentleman can say about it will be of interest to the House.
  12.50 a.m.
  Mr. Elystan Morgan: With your leave, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House, I will be glad to deal with the matters raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck).
  On the last point, about briefing in the Court of the Western Pacific, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that it is not open for lawyers to solicit the custom of any person or persons in any court whatsoever.
  On the question of modifications, where an Order-in-Council is made under Section 2(1) or under Section 2(2, c) of the Act, as this draft Order is made, it may also include provisions, in accordance with Section 2(3) of the Act, for such "exceptions, adaptations or modifications" to the standard arrangements for return as may be considered appropriate to the needs of a particular country. This draft Order incorporates some minor changes of this kind.

  1489
  The changes in the draft Order are purely mechanical, but there could be modifications in other Orders that went more to the substance of the 1967 Act. Although in this particular case the modifications are minimal, in theory they could be made to deal with the omission of the need to produce evidence to establish a prima facie case against an accused person—the mere formal proof of the issue of a warrant, for example. In some cases, where such territories have a common frontier, it is possible that such modifications would be appropriate and even necessary.
  On reciprocity, arrangements for the return of fugitive offenders customarily operate on a reciprocal basis. I am sure that the House will be glad to know that provision for the return of fugitives to the United Kingdom has been or will be made in the law of each of the four countries and territories mentioned in the draft Order. The Fugitive Offenders (British Solomon Islands Protectorate) Order, 1967 came into operation on 1st January, 1968, and the Fugitive Offenders (New Hebrides) Order, 1968 on 19th July this year Both those territories—as could be the case of each of the four we have mentioned—are able to deal with this matter by an Order in Council rather than by full formality of legislation. Both Brunei and Tonga have signified their intention of proceeding by way of full legislation and we expect them quite shortly to enact laws similar to the 1967 Act.
  Of the countries outside Her Majesty's Dominions in which Her Majesty has jurisdiction or over which she extends protection, the Persian Gulf States alone have not been included in the Order. The position, therefore, will be that the coming into force of this Order, if the House accepts it, will have the effect of repealing in full and in general the provisions of the 1881 Act. Therefore, there will be no provision for the return of offenders from such time to the point in time when these territories become independent countries. If, however, the need to resume such arrangements should be apparent in future, this could be achieved by an Order specifying the Persian Gulf States as countries to which the Act applies.
  Mr. Buck: On that further point, it seems that a matter of some seriousness—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. I assume that the hon. Gentleman is speaking on the Minister resuming his seat.
  Mr. Buck: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has not the right to speak a second time.
  Mr. Buck: No. I was interrupting. I understood that, with his usual courtesy, the Under-Secretary had given way.
  It seems that a matter of some seriousness arises. Apparently, there is no reciprocal arrangement in the matter either way with the Persian Guf States. I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could say whether it is our intention to enter into negotiations with the appropriate States to see that the gap in the scheme is filled in the near future.
  Mr. Morgan: This is a matter on which the Home Office acts in conjunction with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I confirm that that will be the position as from 1st January, 1969, if the Order comes into force, but the position could easily be rectified if there were occasion so to do.
  It is noteworthy that there is only one recorded case of an application for the return of an offender from the Persian Gulf States, that of Demetrious, in 1966.
  Mr. Buck: What about Tonga?
  Mr. Morgan: I should need notice of that question to enable me to answer it.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Fugitive Offenders (United Kingdom Dependencies) Order 1968, a draft of which was laid before this House on 5th November, be approved.

  STORM DAMAGE, GLASGOW (EFFECTS)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. O'Malley.]
  12.56 a.m.
  Mr. Tom McMillan: I welcome this opportunity to bring to the notice of the House the dreadful conditions in which hundreds

  1491
  of my constituents are living. If I do less than that, I feel that I shall be failing in my duty. I should like to tell the House of the conditions which are prevailing nearly a year after the storm in Glasgow occurred, and I feel that the best way to do this is to give a typical example of the hundreds of cases which have come to my notice since the storm.
  Two or three weeks ago a constituent came to my home and pleaded with me to go and see the conditions under which he and his family had to live. I suggested that the first thing to do was to get in touch with the Storm Damage Centre to see whether we could get the machinery going to help him immediately. On contacting the centre, I was informed that there was no one available to be sent to the house.
  It was early on the Sunday morning that my constituent had come to my home, so I then went with him to his house, and I found what can be found in hundreds of houses in Glasgow now when it rains. Rain was coming into every part of the house, and no food could be cooked on the cooker because of the danger of using it. I said to my constituent, "I have seen so many cases like this that I shall contact the fire service and try to get them in to help".
  I contacted the fire service, and was informed that the people there had been acting on this type of problem, but were no longer doing so. I then resorted to the police, and was told that they would try every agency open to them to see whether someone could fix the tarpaulin on the roof so that there was some shelter for the family.
  About half an hour later the telephone rang, and the sergeant said, "I am sorry, but I have been to the agencies that you have been to, and to agencies over and above those, but I have failed to get anyone to give succour to this family". He then said, "I shall send a policeman to explain to the family that we have failed to get anyone to help, but we shall keep trying".
  Later in the day I was able to contact the Civil Defence officer and tell him the plight of this family. Indeed, I was able to tell him that I had knowledge of many cases of a similar kind. This couple had not long been married. The
  1492
  house had been recently decorated, but it was in ruins, and the young couple were almost at the end of their tether. After explaining everything, and saying that in my judgment this case was worse than some of the others, we eventually managed to get someone from the Storm Damage Centre to square off the tarpaulin, which had been there for a long time.
  The case to which I have referred is one in which some temporary measures were taken, and some comfort was given, albeit at a late stage. But lack of skilled labour is causing a delay in many hundreds of cases. Deterioration sometimes goes right through from the top to the basement. There was recently an electrical explosion in one building to which no one has yet attended.
  I should explain the problems. The condition of old buildings in Glasgow, neglected for years by landlords, is adding greatly to the burden. Two things are clear. First, the job is not proceeding as fast as it should. One reason is that every wet week workmen have to go over work already done. Each wet week adds between £20,000 and £30,000 to the storm damage bill, and this should not go on.
  The other point is the tremendously serious fire hazard represented by these tarpaulins, polythene sheeting and non-slated material on the roofs. From the high part of Glasgow where I live I can see right across the city and can see sparks flying on to this material. The Firemaster has appealed to people to have chimneys swept and take precautions, since he has already answered many calls about fire caused in this way. Only a quick repair of the storm damage can solve this fire problem.
  If it is argued that my constituents were a little optimistic to expect to be free of wind and water hazards by 30th September, then we must hear an explanation of the fact that firms in a central pool have large stocks of material for a continuity of work. That means that Glasgow people will be suffering from storm damage not only this winter, but probably next as well. This is my great fear.
  Since the storm, 30 people have died, 11 by falling from roofs. I see the workmen, on cold windy days, trying to bring

  1493
  comfort to their fellow citizens and I admire and respect them. They have lost life in doing jobs beyond the call of duty, and we can help them in many ways. For instance, in one house in my constituency, a girl was taken to hospital with rheumatic fever, and another also had a fever, complicated by a heart condition. The fever was due to the storm damage. They had no roof, and the corporation would not house them. Workmen on the spot, who were working seven days a week were reported in the Scottish Daily Express as saying that they would work an extra shift because they could not let that family live in those conditions. This is the condition of many in my constituency.
  But this group of workmen also told me that they were not supplied with safety harnesses, and that they were under terrific economic pressures to do a full seven-day week. The workmen have told me that they get a bonus of 1s. 6d. an hour for roof work, but that if, for any reason, even through illness, they take a day off, they lose a whole week's bonus. One man said that he lost £10 one week because he took a day off. It is dangerous to put pressure like this on men doing such hazardous work. It is forcing them to work seven days a week, and they deserve better treatment in view of the wonderful job that they are doing.
  What can we do to solve the problem in Glasgow and elsewhere this winter? Realising that all the spare capacity of skilled labour in this and surrounding areas has been absorbed, there is only one other source of workers skilled in this type of work, and that is from new building. I appreciate the Minister's desire to show record house building figures, but I have never believed that it is a grown-up attitude for politicians to say, "We have built more houses than you did". More important are the types of houses and the places in which they are built. That is being proved to be the case south of the Border.
  In view of the abject misery in which many of my constituents are living because their storm damaged homes have not been repaired—and this applies to the constituents of many other hon. Members—the people of Scotland would understand if the Government forgot about housebuilding targets until this ailing
  1494
  situation is cured. I assure the Minister that my constituents—there are still 3,500 houses under repair in the area—would be only too delighted if all possible steps were taken to tackle this problem now. I am sure that the people of Greenock and elsewhere feel the same.
  If we cannot bring in more skilled labour, what should we do? In Glasgow, we have a good damage repair centre. There are excellent means of communication among the various sections of it and the staff know what they are doing. However, this efficiency at the top does not necessarily reach the lower levels of the set-up. There is not enough supervisory staff able to take decisions on the spot, give directions for urgent work to be done or even make a telephone call to find out if something can be done.
  In one case workmen erected all the paraphernalia for repairing a chimney head and discovered, as they were about to begin work, that they did not have the necessary green form to do the job. All the paraphernalia had to be removed, only to be put in position again a few weeks later when the green form had been issued. I was told by a resident living in that property, "The workmen had been repairing the roof next door and we asked them to make our building weatherproof. They wanted to, but they did not have permission to proceed."
  We need 40 or 50 supervisors to make decisions and work as a team. By using the existing set-up more efficiently, a great deal more could be done. Unless help is provided, this problem will be with us next winter, let alone this one.
  While I have been critical and have urged urgent action to be taken, it must be accepted that those who were responsible for ensuring that Glasgow's tenemental property was watertight failed to do their job. The neglect of many years has created a dreadful problem for Glasgow Corporation and the Government. Now the first priority must be given to ensuring that my constituents and people like them are helped so that they need not live a miserable existence.
  1.10 a.m.
  The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): I am grate-fault to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Tom McMillan)

  1495
  for saying that there are constituencies as badly hit as his own, indeed worse hit. Mine is among them. The reasons for that are complex and, alas, too lightly skated over by critics.
  This problem of repairing the storm damage in the very old parts and tenements in multiple ownership in two large burghs and in the centre of Glasgow and other parts is very much underestimated. It is an extremely complex task, to say the least. Many of these properties are privately owned and we do not have rights of requisitioning; we do not have absolute rights of taking over private property. It may be argued that we should have. No doubt we can debate that on the housing Bill we shall introduce later in the Session as promised in the Queen's Speech, but at the moment we have to abide by the law as it is.
  Although my hon. Friend referred to Green Papers, I presume that he was referring to procedures under Section 11 of the Housing Act, 1956. That Section was never designed for dealing with storm damage. The last great storm occurred when I was 2 years of age and the Government then made no record of their means of repairing storm damage. We have to learn to deal with it the hard way. I sympathise very much not only with those in the centre of Glasgow, but in other parts of the city, in Govan and Partick, which were hit even harder since they were in the middle of the storms' path.
  I accept another well-known fact. Although for many years we have had large numbers of complaints about leaky roofs and derelict properties and badly looked after properties, it is strange but true that today the number of complaints such as those my hon. Friend has mentioned are actually fewer than in preceding years. The source for that statement is not just the records of the sanitary department, but the President of the Property Owners and Factors' Association.
  Mr. Michael Noble: I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has given way, because he is using the same point that was made by the Secretary of State the other night. I was given the same figures by the same people. They said that although the total number of
  1496
  complaints was less the severity was infinitely greater. In the old days, it was a matter of a slate being off a roof, but now the complaint is of a torrent coming through the roof. Unless that is accepted, a totally false impression is given.
  Dr. Mabon: I do not accept that at all. We are told that today the cause of every leaky roof is storm damage, but we know that that is patently untrue. My hon. Friend would be the first to admit that he has had complaints about leaky roofs before the storm.
  The Storm Damage Centre has to treat these complaints as if they are the direct result of the storm, but many of these roofs which have been damaged have been nail sick for years. To repair the damaged part and leave the other parts alone would be asking for trouble in years to come. To put this matter into proper perspective I will give the latest figures. It was not only the centre of Glasgow which was affected, but a large part of Scotland. In all, 272,743 roofs were damaged and now 256,672 have been repaired.
  Many people in other parts of Scotland believe that only an odd slate or a window was damaged in some of these cases but many of these houses were seriously damaged, as is shown by inspection of parts of Fife, Edinburgh, Sterling, Greenock, Clydebank and Helens-burgh, a district stretching across the west of Scotland and also to the east. Of course, it is true that the roofs which remain to be repaired are concentrated in Glasgow, Stirling and Greenock. Outside these three burghs there are fewer than 4,000 roofs to be repaired. Our aim has been to get these roofs wind and watertight, and, if not permanently repaired thereafter, at least repaired on a semi-permanent basis.
  Coming back to the question of private property, some owners are not prepared to have anything other than full and proper repairs to their property. They can go to law on this and in the courts they can succeed because it is their property. If they can prove that they are trying to get their property repaired, and if a contractor has accepted the obligation to do it, we can hardly contest that. It may be that we shall have to look at this afresh.

  1497
  However, my hon. Friend knows, having visited the Storm Damage Centre—he said so—that the organisation is very good. He gave an illustration of what happened on one Sunday morning, when finally he got the Civil Defence officer to arrange for some kind of adjustment, as he called it, of the tarpaulin. We recognised at the beginning that we could not have men repairing roofs and then going off to do emergency repairs, because it would be squandering the labour. So we nave organised two emergency squads of 40 men, one north of the river and one south of it, which are permanently employed on the job of looking after the houses that are not being permanently repaired at this moment. They are doing up to 40 jobs a day. This is an efficient and imaginative piece of organisation for which the Glasgow Corporation and the S.S.H.A. should be given full credit.
  As the repairs have been completed in other towns we have gathered in the skilled men. We cannot force men to go on roofs. This should be remembered. No one has yet told us that we should compel men to go on roofs. Also, men are not compelled to work seven days a week. From my hon. Friend's speech, one can appreciate the great pressure on them. They have had a feeling of social conscience, something beyond the call of duty. They have wanted to carry out the work. But there are dangers in men working seven days a week. Proof of that is in the number who have been injured and the number who have given their lives as a consequence of their effort to repair the houses.
  We promised Glasgow Corporation that we would try as hard as possible to get an additional central force organised. We brought in many men from England. We combed the Services and the Ministry of Public Building and Works. We tried to reach a target figure of 1,000 men in the central pool. The labour force now is 1,700, and 500 of them have been provided directly by us. They are spread over 60 separate firms working at any one time on 500 different properties.
  The right hon Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) once argued that we should divide the city in four and move over it in
  1498
  that way. That would be all right if it were acceptable. But the property owners would not see it that way, and they could by local pressure frustrate our efforts in that direction. So we have used the Section 11 powers and obtained the full co-operation of the property owners and factors, with three or four ignoble exceptions, to get ahead with the repair work as best we can.
  I have dealt with the organisation for temporary repairs. I hope that it will be more successful than in the past, when we had a greater volume of work to do. Supervision is at two levels—by the firms being employed to do the work and by the corporation. The payments to firms include an element for supervision. It is their responsibility to ensure that work is properly carried out. My hon. Friend suggested that supervision might be necessary because some workmen are not doing their job. That is, as he recognised, in very exceptional cases.
  Most of the men have worked extremely hard. It is very difficult to have detailed supervision of every man on a roof, as the right hon. Member for Argyll would confirm. Most of the men working on the repairs are doing a magnificent job in Glasgow. Seven men have given their lives and 37 have been injured.
  To control the standard of workmanship and to check on costs, the corporation has six district offices covering the city and manned by surveyors, clerks of works and inspectors. Where bad workmanship is found, the firm concerned, under the terms of its contract, must put it right, and this is being enforced vigorously. One difficulty is that inspectors qualified and able to go on roofs to check this kind of work are not plentiful, and where good slaters are available they are often better employed in doing work themselves rather than inspecting. I think that my hon. Friend would agree with that.
  A balance has to be kept and the corporation is doing this quite well. The work is taking longer than we had all hoped, but this is primarily due to the factor my hon. Friend mentioned—50 years of neglect. The corporation rightly decided that having started to exercise its powers under section 11 it must ensure

  1499
  that the roofs were properly repaired, and not merely put back into the condition in which they were before the storm. The corporation's success in doing this is shown by the steady decline in complaints of rain penetration. The Secretary of the Property Owners and Factors' Association has said in references to the Secretary of State, to Under-Secretaries and to me, not only in January, but recently, that he appreciates all the work we have tried to do.
  I should like to pay tribute to the Lord Provost of Glasgow. Ever since the morning of 15th January all the activities of the Glasgow Corporation have shown a sense of urgency. Throughout the whole period I have been in close touch with the Lord Provost and have attended almost weekly meetings of his special Storm Damage Committee. In the fight to repair the roofs, the Lord Provost and his officials have never ceased to treat the matter as one of urgency.
  This has been shown by the long hours they have worked and by their constant search for more effective ways of bringing relief to those affected. I have already mentioned the mobile squads maintaining the temporary repairs and their continuing search for new technical solutions. Only last week, a new method of repair, using aluminium sheets, was being tested, but many of these methods, using bitumen on top of slates, mean that roofs cannot be reslated in future and these are restricted to short-life property.
  On the question of fire risks, and particularly after what happened calamitously on Monday, all the non-traditional methods of repair that we are using have been cleared by the Firemaster. The felt and bituminous repairs are finished with non-flammable materials and I would like to assure the citizens of Glasgow that they need not be worried about the effectiveness of the semi-permanent repairs made in place of permanent repairs which will take longer.
  The responsibility for private property rests with owners, but the Government and local authorities accept that, because of the magnitude of the damage, particularly in Glasgow, and because of the inadequate arrangements in many cases—not always the fault of owners—for
  1500
  insurance cover, we have had to give additional help.
  The Government have had to give additional support by helping to build up the labour force and by supplying finance. We have lent to Glasgow Corporation a number of officials from the Ministry of Public Building and Works, from the Scottish Office and from the S.S.H.A. and have augmented by one-third the labour force under the corporation's control.
  Because of the particular difficulties there we have advanced to Glasgow alone about £666,000 solely for working capital for repairs in the private sector. This is in addition to the 75 per cent. grant which we will give to the Corporation on repair costs not recovered from owners because to do so would cause hardship. This, again, is in addition to the grants to local authorities to ensure that the cost of repairing their own property does not lead to an undue burden on the rates.
  This is the only practical help which the Government are giving. My hon. Friend spoke about getting more men. When we get the repairs done in Greenock, we send men to Glasgow, if they are willing to go. We will try hard to bring as many men as we can from elsewhere to work in the central pool. If we can push hard, there is no reason to believe that it will be next winter before we can get through the ravages of this storm, which was the most calamitous in Scotland's history. It was without precedent and meant that we have had to improvise with new methods. The lessons are there to learn, but I hope that no other Government will ever be faced with the same difficult problem as we have had since January.
  I will look into what my hon. Friend has said. I would like him to give me the references he made at the beginning of his speech to the lady and the young man and also to the other case he mentioned, so that I can investigate them. In addition to dealing with my own constituency, I have had to write many hundreds of letters—it must now be nearly 1,000—about storm damage. I accept it as part of our responsibility as Ministers to try to help wherever we

  1501
  can in clearing up this immensely difficult problem.
  It is all very easy for some people to criticise, but the men on these roofs, working as they are working, are doing a job comparable with anything done during the war to save our nation.
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twenty-six minutes past One o'clock.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  D.D.T. (Use)
  D.D.T. (Use)
  Marine Sciences
  Marine Sciences
  Antibiotics in Animal Husbandry (Swann Committee)
  Antibiotics in Animal Husbandry (Swann Committee)
  Forestry Commission Supervisory Staff (Retirement)
  Forestry Commission Supervisory Staff (Retirement)
  Semi-mature Trees
  Semi-mature Trees
  Hedgerows and Trees (Farms)
  Hedgerows and Trees (Farms)
  Turkeys (Arizona Paracolon)
  Turkeys (Arizona Paracolon)
  Harvest
  Harvest
  Sheep Population, West Midlands
  Sheep Population, West Midlands
  Smallholdings (Wise Committee Report)
  Smallholdings (Wise Committee Report)
  Floods (Co-ordinated Studies)
  Floods (Co-ordinated Studies)
  Imported Pigmeat
  Imported Pigmeat
  Farm Rents
  Farm Rents
  Land Ownership (Statistics)
  Land Ownership (Statistics)
  Sugar Beet
  Sugar Beet
  Algae Cultivation
  Algae Cultivation
  Calf Exports
  Calf Exports
  Cheese Imports
  Cheese Imports
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease
  Milk Production (Transport Costs)
  Milk Production (Transport Costs)
  Foodstuffs (Imports)
  Foodstuffs (Imports)
TECHNOLOGY
  Concorde Aircraft
  Concorde Aircraft
  Metric System (Retailers)
  Metric System (Retailers)
  Magneto Hydrodynamic Power (Development)
  Magneto Hydrodynamic Power (Development)
  Rocket Propulsion (Research and Development)
  Rocket Propulsion (Research and Development)
  Metrication Board
  Metrication Board
  Decimal Comma
  Decimal Comma
SCOTLAND
  Police Officers (Statistics)
  Police Officers (Statistics)
  Agricultural Wage
  Agricultural Wage
  Unregistered School Teachers
  Unregistered School Teachers
  Prisoners (Classification Scheme)
  Prisoners (Classification Scheme)
  Electric Towel Rails
  Electric Towel Rails
  Forestry, Dumfriesshire
  Forestry, Dumfriesshire
  Local Authority Housebuilding
  Local Authority Housebuilding
  Hospital Staff (Turnover)
  Hospital Staff (Turnover)
  Schools (Ancillary Staff)
  Schools (Ancillary Staff)
  School Teachers (Statistics)
  School Teachers (Statistics)
BOARD OF TRADE
  Building Grant, Jedburgh
  Building Grant, Jedburgh
  Auction Rings
  Auction Rings
  Duccio Painting (Sale)
  Duccio Painting (Sale)
  Investment Grants
  Investment Grants
  Auction Law (Report)
  Auction Law (Report)
  Hotel and Tourist Industry
  Hotel and Tourist Industry
  Trade Descriptions Act (Publicity)
  Trade Descriptions Act (Publicity)
  Trade Figures (Seasonal Adjustment)
  Trade Figures (Seasonal Adjustment)
AVIATION
  Yeadon Airport
  Yeadon Airport
  Public Address Equipment
  Public Address Equipment
  U.S. Military Aircraft
  U.S. Military Aircraft
  Boeing 747 Aircraft (B.O.A.C.)
  Boeing 747 Aircraft (B.O.A.C.)
SHIPPING
  Sight Tests (Merchant Navy)
  Sight Tests (Merchant Navy)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Linesman System
  Linesman System
  Decorations and Honours
  Decorations and Honours
  Admiralty Charts
  Admiralty Charts
COAL
  Fluidised Combustion of Coal (Research)
  Fluidised Combustion of Coal (Research)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  West Melton (Proposed Primary School)
  West Melton (Proposed Primary School)
  Insect Pheromones (Research)
  Insect Pheromones (Research)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Non-Industrial Civil Servants
  Non-Industrial Civil Servants
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Cannabis (Report)
  Cannabis (Report)
  Polling Hours
  Polling Hours
  Commonwealth Immigrants
  Commonwealth Immigrants
  Victims of Crime (Compensation)
  Victims of Crime (Compensation)
  Police Code of Conduct
  Police Code of Conduct
  Commissions (Royal Warrant Appointments)
  Commissions (Royal Warrant Appointments)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Family Allowances (Taxation)
  Family Allowances (Taxation)
EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
  Distributive Trades Training Board
  Distributive Trades Training Board
  Distributive Trades Training Board
  Distributive Trades Training Board
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  Ministerial Duties
  Ministerial Duties
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  HAGUE CONFERENCE (ATTENDANCE)
  HAGUE CONFERENCE (ATTENDANCE)
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (SWIMMING POOL)
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (SWIMMING POOL)
  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS
  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS
  RACE RELATIONS (SELECT COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP)
  RACE RELATIONS (SELECT COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP)
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  New Government Offices
  New Government Offices
HOSPITALS
  Parental Visits
  Parental Visits
RAILWAYS
  Users' Representations
  Users' Representations
  Closures (Yorkshire)
  Closures (Yorkshire)
  Social Grants, Suffolk
  Social Grants, Suffolk
PORTS
  Felixstowe Dock
  Felixstowe Dock

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

SMOKING IN CINEMAS
LORD AMULREE: 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, in view of the fact that smoking in cinemas is prohibited in most Western countries, they would consult with local authorities on the possibility of a similar ban being imposed in Great Britain.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, the noble Lord has no doubt seen the statement made in another place by the former Minister of Health in January last year about smoking in public places generally. We are seeking further information about foreign experience in the field covered by the noble Lord's Question, and shall keep the possibility under review.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for that reply, but it really does not go very far. As I do not recall what was said in another place in January I would ask him whether he could paraphrase it for me in a few words.
LORD KENNET: With your Lordships' permission, I would sooner send the Statement to the noble Lord, as it was rather full.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Amulree? Do not the Government think that this is something on which this Government and this country should make up their own minds, without bothering too much about what happens in other countries?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, we know that at least five countries, France, Sweden, New Zealand, Switzerland and certain States of the United States of America, ban smoking in cinemas, and I think we should first of all find out a little more about why they do and how it has turned out, although I agree with the assumption behind the noble Lord's original Question that this is a proposition well worth considering.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, do the Government know why this is done in other countries?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, as at present advised, I believe it was because it was thought to reduce the risk of fire.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, do not Her Majesty's Government think that, supposing they were to engage in consultations such as I have mentioned, it might show that there was some willingness to try to stop the spread of an unpleasant disease which seems to me closely involved in the smoking of cigarettes?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, there is the greatest willingness on the part of the Government to do what can be done to stop the spread of lung cancer. The difficulty is to get people to be sensible about it.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, could my noble friend explain to me why, while the Government control the advertising of tobacco on the screen, nevertheless they do nothing to discourage those who are concerned with the I.T.V. and the B.B.C. from showing pictures in which apparently the heroine and the hero always smoke?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the Government have arranged for the control of cigarette advertising, not tobacco advertising, but I would hesitate at this moment to go any further in saying what the Government might do about controlling television programmes.

TELEVISION ADVERTISING OF ALCOHOLIC DRINK
2.39 p.m.
LORD SORENSEN: 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 why, in view of the exclusion of advertisements of cigarettes from television, advertisements of alcoholic beverages are not also excluded on the ground that both excessive cigarette smoking and excessive consumption of alcohol are liable to cause serious physical ill-health and disease.]
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the dangers of excessive drinking are well known, and I am not sure that a ban on television advertising would add much to other measures of control, particularly over the sale of alcohol to young people. I understand that by agreement between the distillers there is almost no advertising of hard liquor on television, and the position is therefore not very different from that on tobacco where the ban applies only to cigarettes, the form which is most harmful to health.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that unsatisfactory reply, may I ask him whether he is not aware that, though we frequently hear of offences of a violent nature caused through excessive drinking, no one has heard of any case brought against a person for violence because of excessive cigarette smoking? In those circumstances is it not completely inconsistent to ban one and not the other? Is it not true that the excessive consumption of alcohol is, in the long run, much more serious in every way than that of excessive cigarette smoking?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I should hesitate to judge the relative importance of these two articles of consumption and their effects as between violence and lung cancer.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that there is this great difference: that whereas the man who drinks kills only himself, the man who smokes helps to kill other people?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, not if he is driving a motor car.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, may I ask whether it is not true that large numbers of people under the influence of drink have killed many people and are likely to kill many more?

WELSH REFERENDUM ON SUNDAY OPENING
LORD MAELOR: 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 they have received reports of considerable confusion in the voters' minds during the recent referendum in Wales on Sunday Opening, caused by the use of Welsh and English of alternate lines on the voting paper, and by the layout of the panels and the way in which the answer was required; and whether they can give an estimate of the number of spoiled votes.]
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, we have received no such reports. As regards the number of spoiled ballot papers, there is no central record. We are collecting the information, and when it has been received we will communicate it to the noble Lord.
LORD MAELOR: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her reply. I am not quite satisfied with the Answer, because I can give her facts and figures. In the county of Denbigh—
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, my noble friend should ask a question.
LORD MAELOR: Is my noble friend aware that in Denbigh there were 470 spoiled votes, and that in fact 1,500 were technically spoiled, except that the presiding officer could presume to know what was the intention of the voter. I must say that I am not surprised. I have here a copy of the ballot paper.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Speech!
LORD MAELOR: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I have this copy, and that it is most confusing? There is an unnecessary question in English and Welsh at the top: "Are you for or against the opening of licensed premises in the county of Denbigh on Sundays for the sale of intoxicating liquor?". Well, the answer to that is: "That is why I came here to vote, for or against".
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I must ask my noble friend to ask a question. The House is in a good mood and

847
is indulgent, and I think perhaps I might allow my noble friend Lady Phillips to answer that part of his speech that was in an interrogatory form.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I am sure that it would be proper to try to answer the noble Lord, since we have already had two "dissatisfied customers" to-day. The Home Office have written to the clerks of county councils and town clerks asking for the information which the noble Lord wishes to obtain. As soon as we receive this information it will be sent on to the noble Lord. I would remind him that it is for the clerks of county councils to decide upon the ballot paper inasmuch as this can be either bilingual or in only one language. I also have a ballot paper in my hand. It relates to the County of Carmarthen-shire, and I am bound to say that it seems quite clear that one is voting either for Sunday opening or against it.
LORD MAELOR: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness to bring to the notice of her Department the desirability of having a voting paper in Welsh or in English, since Welsh is regarded in Wales as of equal importance to English? The voter should have a choice of voting paper, and not be subjected to the confusion which took place in this instance.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord will recall that this point was debated when we discussed the Welsh Language Bill. The noble Lord will appreciate that it would be difficult if one had left over a large number of ballot papers. This is a much more difficult problem even than registration forms. I feel that when the noble Lord thinks the matter over he will feel that this would only add to the confusion.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the "considerable confusion in the voters' minds" existed in the "wet" counties or in the "dry" counties?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, when we receive the necessary information, we shall no doubt be able to disentangle it.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that
848
there would be a value in having the voting papers produced separately in two different languages, since it would then show which people wished to speak English and which of them wished to speak Welsh?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I suppose one can take that view. On the other hand, I think that it would open the door to more duplication. Since at present there is criticism in relation to spending too much money on forms, a matter which is often voiced in this House, it seems to me that this would involve extra expense.

POSTAL SURCHARGE ON UNSTAMPED LETTERS
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: 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 an unstamped letter is delivered, the recipient to whom it is addressed is required to pay double charge for first-class or for second-class mail; and whether such unstamped letters are treated within the Post Office as first-class or second-class letters.]
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, the charge to be paid on an unstamped letter is double the second-class rate; these letters are treated within the Post Office as second-class letters.

HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM
2.46 p.m.
Debate resumed on the Motion moved yesterday by the Lord Chancellor (on behalf of the Lord Shackleton) namely, That this House gives general approval to the proposals for the Reform of the House of Lords as set out in the White Paper House of Lords Reform (Cmnd. 3799).
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, we are now nearly, but not quite, halfway through this very long debate on the reform of your Lordships' House. We have heard views expressed on almost every aspect of the White Paper and, with a few notable exceptions, I think that your Lordships have been commendably brief.

849
Not unnaturally, a large number of speeches have concentrated on the abolition of the hereditary principle in this House. I shall have a word to say on that a little later. We have listened to a number of excellent speeches, and I have had some difficulty in deciding which to refer to. It I were to comment on all those on which I should like to say something I fear that I should far exceed the time which I believe the opener on the second day of a three-day debate should take, and I will confine myself to saying how much I enjoyed the excellent speech of my noble friend Lord Denham. My only regret is that I cannot go all the way with him.
For myself, I welcome the White Paper in, as the Motion says, general terms. I think that it can be called the first real break-through since 1911 towards a workable reformed House. Like many of your Lordships, I regret the passing of the hereditary Peer, but personally I fully accept that, in this day and age, a seat and vote purely on grounds of heredity are not acceptable to the country as a whole. On the other hand, I hope that the noble Lords opposite can give me an assurance that just because someone inherits a Peerage, he will not, when life Peerages are being considered, be looked upon any less favourably than a commoner. Noble Lords laugh, but this is by no means an impossibility. I believe that, with reasonable good will on all sides, these proposals can be made to work. There is no doubt that the All-Party Conference achieved a remarkable degree of success.
We are asked to give "general approval" to the proposals in the White Paper. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, or the noble Lord the Leader of the House, will be able to assure us that the Government are not in any way finally committed on every detail in this White Paper. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said yesterday that the Government will listen carefully to all the arguments which are put forward in this House. I hope that the Government will be prepared to accept Amendments to the Bill, when it is produced, if they are satisfied that the original plan can be made better.
A lot was said yesterday on the subject of subordinate legislation. I fully
850
accept the difficulty, from any Government's point of view, of having this House delay subordinate legislation which is of a really urgent character, and I note that the Conference thought that further consideration should be given to this question. At the same time, if this House is to have no check at all, then it seems to me that the danger of an unscrupulous Government using subordinate legislation for the purpose of avoiding ordinary public legislation is quite considerable. Would it really have been right for a highly controversial Order, such as that dealing with Stansted Airport, to come into force without this House having any power to delay it?
May I make a suggestion for the consideration of the proposed Joint Select Committee: that power should be given to Mr. Speaker to satisfy himself that an Order is of an urgent character, and that once a certificate is granted this House should have no powers of delaying that particular Order, other than the powers proposed in paragraph 57 of the White Paper, which enable this House to require another place to reconsider an Order? Without that certificate, is there any excuse for not being able to delay an Order for a period of up to, say, six months? It would be for the Government of the day to make a case to Mr. Speaker that this or that Order was urgently required. Undoubtedly, there would be borderline cases, but it is surely better that a few of those should fall on the wrong side of the fence than that we should have no power at all of delaying subordinate legislation. It would obviously be necessary to write into the Bill a definition of "urgent", which might not be too easy to define. But I have great faith in the ingenuity of Government draftsmen and I think that could be done.
I now come to my main criticism of the proposals in the White Paper, which is concerned with what was originally proposed in the early discussions in your Lordships' House. I refer to what is called the two-writ system, which has now, in fact, appeared as a one-writ system. Under these proposals, every created Peer will have the option of exercising his right to vote, and if he should forgo that right he will have an equal right at the beginning of the next Parliament of taking up that option again.

851
It is that option which causes me grave concern, for if the standard of debate in this Chamber is to be maintained there must obviously be a large number of Peers who come to speak only Occasionally on their particular subjects and who will therefore almost certainly have renounced their voting rights for that current Parliament. Thereafter they will all have the undisputed right to exercise their vote in the next Parliament should they so desire.
Noble Lords opposite may well say that a large majority of those who have opted out in one Parliament will doubtless opt out in the next one. But if in the next Parliament the winning Party had got in on either an extremely Right Wing programme or an extremely Left Wing programme, a considerable number of those who had forgone their right to vote might well feel that in those circumstances they must concentrate on your Lordships' House and exercise their right to vote. The result might be that, instead of a new Government's having to top up their numbers with possibly 20 or 30 creations, they might find themselves in the position of having to make perhaps 150 new Peers.
To my mind, this is creating a new form of backwoodsman. In the past we have heard a great deal about the menace of the backwoodsman from this side of the House. Your Lordships may say that that menance has not materialised, but it is a very real fear to be found among the supporters of the Government. Why, therefore, should we create a new form of backwoodsman? I thought one of the objects of this reform was to get away from the great anomalies, and, surely, one of the anomalies has been the so-called backwoodsman. Therefore, why should we make some more? Would it not be in the interests of the House, of the Government of the day and of everybody that there should be a limit to the number of Peers entitled to vote in any particular Parliament, and that that should be known beforehand? Why should a Peer not be granted either a speaking writ or a voting writ? If he was in receipt of the former, then he would have no option to receive a voting writ. But if he had been granted a voting writ and renounced his right to vote, he would then receive a speaking writ
852
and, again, in my opinion, should have no right to opt back into becoming a voting Peer. That does not in any way mean that those in receipt of the speaking writ could not at some other stage be given again, or for the first time, a voting writ.
It may be argued that all Peers in the reformed House must have the same rights; in fact, it was argued yesterday. But does this really bear close examination? During the lifetime of any particular Parliament, those who have renounced their voting rights and those who have passed the age of being able to exercise their voting rights cannot be said to be equal to those who are exercising those rights. Equally, those Peers who will continue to sit here through succession during their lifetime cannot be said to be equal to those who have the voting right. If we have a two-writ system, I can see no reason for in any way limiting the number of speaking Peers. Therefore, not only can we have an unlimited number of experts, who will come only occasionally but will give us great advice when they do come; but, further, we might even enjoy some refreshing advice from young persons. It seems to me that there is the danger in the one-writ system, that a Prime Minister may be chary of creating a number of Peers who agree to renounce their voting rights, for fear that they may opt in again at some later stage.
While, therefore, I accept that there is a really worthwhile scheme in this White Paper, I think we should all now strive to obtain the best possible solution. Let us all remember that if we can produce something which is not only workable but will also give the country a feeling of safeguard, then we can well be creating a Second Chamber that will endure for many years to come. The main burden of giving the country the best possible House lies with the Government, but every Member of this House also has a share in that responsibility. So let us all strive together to produce a House of which we can be really proud.
2.59 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, I agree with the noble Earl that it would

853
be quite impossible, particularly when one takes into account the large number of noble Lords who wish to speak, to attempt to deal with the many points which were made yesterday. Therefore, I shall try to direct the attention of your Lordships' House to the main, crucial points of the White Paper and the issue that will confront the House tomorrow evening. I am glad to intervene in this debate for, if my memory serves me aright, I wrote the first paper that led directly to this White Paper. I did so on the instructions of my noble friend Lord Longford, who was then the Leader of the House.
We approached our task not in a spirit of vindictiveness, nor on the basis of change for the sake of change. We believed that reform was necessary in the interests of Parliament; that it should be so timed that in all respects the reform should be well thought out; and that if there was a chance to obtain a wide measure of agreement we should obtain it. My Lords, I think we were proved right. For the first time, the political Leaders of three Parties have been able to sit down and, over many long months, have been able to arrive at a general agreement on reform, both on powers and on composition; and, the Leaders having reached their agreement, it is now for Parliament itself to decide.
My noble friend Lord Silkin raised the important question: why is reform necessary? Every one of us knows that the power of the Executive grows. I believe it will continue to grow, and I think it is clear to all of us that the machinery of Parliament is inadequate to cope with this increased power. That is why Appendix II of the White Paper, dealing with "Possible changes in functions and procedure", is so important. But none of these changes, nor any of the others that may be considered, is possible without a reform of your Lordships' House. I would invite the House to read paragraph 4 of the White Paper, and in particular the words:
"… the reform should therefore be directed towards promoting the more efficient working of Parliament as a whole; …"
I do not think that anyone would deny that it is in the vital interests of Parliament and the country that there should be a major reform, not only of your Lordships' House but of Parliament itself.
854
It may be stated, as it was with great force yesterday, that this House has worked well; but few noble Lords suggested yesterday how its role could be used to a better advantage. In my view its present powers and composition prevent it from being used more efficiently and from playing a real role in Parliament. No Government, Conservative or Labour, will initiate major legislation in this House, for the simple reason that they do not know what your Lordships will do about it; and, as a consequence, legislation that could well have started here reaches us only in the summer and usually we have little time to consider it. I think most noble Lords will consider that we do not pay sufficient attention to legislation because of time.
My Lords, it is true that we have avoided conflict with another place. In some respects this is a credit to this House. But I know from my father, who was Government Chief Whip in the 1945–51 Labour Government, how the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, then leading the Conservative Peers, was required to exert all his undoubted influence to ensure an arrangement by which Labour legislation was not mutilated or obstructed. The House was served with great distinction by the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, as Leader of the House; and these two Leaders, with their two Chief Whips, created what most people regard today as an acceptable role for this House. Since 1964 the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, have sought to maintain that role. The House may take credit, but I am bound to say from my experience of being Chief Whip both in Opposition and in Government that the real credit must lie with the Leaders of the three political Parties and, in particular, with the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn. The noble Earl knows as well as I do how thin was the thread, sometimes, that held us back from a crisis with another place. I can well recall the period when we were discussing prices and incomes, arid when the Liberal Party were dividing on many Amendments late in the Session; and I can well imagine what pressure must have been exerted on noble Lords opposite to get them to abstain from going into the Division Lobbies. I know of many other occasions, too, when the issue was in doubt.

855
But, of course, a Labour Government could correct the position without reform. The White Paper speaks of a permanent Conservative majority. There need not be a permanent Conservative majority in an unreformed House. We could create sufficient Labour Life Peers to give the Government a majority in this House. But if we had done that we would have made a mockery of this House because of its sheer size—and, heaven forbid! its potential size is already too great. So, my Lords, we have lived with an uneasy situation, with the Government dependent largely upon the grace of the Opposition and with the Opposition, I believe, unable to fulfil its natural aspirations. I do not believe that this can be healthy for Parliament, and in such a situation the House could not be expected to retain the respect of the nation or even of its Members. The virtue of this White Paper is that it represents the broad agreement of the representatives of the three political Parties. I do not believe that the Parties would have entered into discussions merely for the sake of change. They believed that reform was due, and were prepared to bring about reform before any crisis came upon us. If a crisis were to some upon us, clearly we should not be able to consider rationally or properly what reform should be undertaken.
Tomorrow the House will be asked to give general approval to the White Paper. I fully understand that some parts of the White Paper raise difficulties. If the Inter-Party Conference had to have any chance of success, then compromise was necessary. The Government have conceded some of their intentions, and so have the Conservative and Liberal Parties. Each one of us may have reservations. We have not gone as far as my noble friend Lord Mitchison would like us to go. On the other hand, the proposals go too far for some noble Lords on the opposite side of the House. But the main question is: do these proposals, taken as a whole, create a new Second Chamber that can perform its present role and provide a base for the reform of Parliament as a whole? Let us take the role of acting as a check on the Executive. I think that perhaps too much play is made of the need for this House to check the other place or the Executive. The White Paper provides that the Government of the day will not have a
856
majority in the House. If challenged by the combined Opposition, the Government would need to hold the votes of the Cross-Benchers, and the Opposition would need to obtain the support of the Cross-Benchers if they wished to defeat the Government. If, as it was suggested yesterday, a Government were seeking to create a unicameral basis of Parliament surely they would not have proceeded in this way. That was not the intention of this Government; nor was it the intention of the Inter-Party Conference.
A question was raised about the reduction in the powers of your Lordships' House. It may be asked why the House, if it is reformed, should have this reduction. There are two reasons. In the first place, the reformed House is to be a nominated House, with the Government having no majority. It follows that the Lords' present equal powers on subordinate legislation must be reduced, and more appropriate provisions substituted for their present powers on Public Bills. The proper role of a non-elected Chamber, I think, is not to say "No" to the other place, which is elected, but to say, "Think again"; and as I understand it that is the general view of noble Lords opposite.
Secondly, it must be anticipated that a reformed House will use its powers in a way in which the House at present would not use them. They must, therefore, be of a kind whose use would not cause the frustrations and delays which would follow from the use of the Lords' powers at present. To-day, the House has powers which it would not exercise for fear of a crisis with another place. The White Paper would give new powers. But these are powers which I believe to be in line with the general philosophy of the House: that the Commons should be given a further opportunity to think. There was a point raised in regard to the extension of Parliamentary life. I would refer the House to paragraph 56 of the White Paper which clearly shows that the 1911 Parliament Act will not be changed in any respect.
My Lords, the two-tier system is unique. It gives us an opportunity of having a hard core of legislators—Peers who will be willing to come to this House to examine legislation. But it will also provide a platform from which eminent

857
persons may speak to the nation. They will speak in Parliament and the Government will have to reply. But, by the very nature of their work or professions, many of these eminent persons may be unable to undertake the work or to devote the time that will be required to be spent on legislation. It was suggested yesterday that this type of Peer would be a "second-class Peer". I do not know how one should regard the noble Lord, Lord James, or the noble Lord, Lord Butler, both very busy professional men in the field of education; and there may be others, like the noble Lord, Lord Todd, or even the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, who may not be able to attend or to meet the requirements of the White Paper. Is it conceivable that any of the noble Lords whose names I have mentioned would be regarded as "second-class" in this House? In the end, the speaking Peers will be judged as they ought to be judged: on the quality and wisdom that they bring to this House and which they put at the disposal of the Government.
My Lords, on the question of hereditary principle I enjoyed very much, as did the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Denham. As an hereditary Peer, I (like the noble Earl) could not agree with what he said. But there was one point that seemed to attract attention. It was that the hereditary principle provides an opportunity of bringing young blood into this House. But I am bound to remind the House of the figures given by the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack: that of the hereditary Peers who attend one-third of your Lordships' Sittings, only one was under the age of 30; and again of that number only nine were between the ages of 30 and 40. Therefore, on those figures, to ensure the attendance of 10 young hereritary Peers—no matter how welcome they may be—the potential number of hereditary Peers we should need would be in the order of 736. If new blood, young blood, is to be brought into this House, this I think must be the responsibility of the political Parties. It may be that in the past they have failed, but I hope that in this new House they will think that this should be now dealt with.
My Lords, there is one other point that I should make to the noble Lord, Lord
858
Denham, in regard to the hereditary principle. It is that the source from which these Peers will come will decrease with the years. The old estates, the great wealth, that was once available and which made it possible for Peers to come to this House is fast disappearing. Therefore, the small number that could attend would come from an increasingly narrow basis of our community.
My Lords, I must deal with the question of patronage. This is a real and genuine problem. It was closely examined by the Inter-Party Conference. It has been said that the proposals will result in too great an extension of the Prime Minister's patronage. This extension is greatly exaggerated. Quite apart from the fact that nominations from other political Parties are likely to come from the Parties concerned, there will be two new features which do not exist at present: the Committee which has been proposed to review the composition of the reformed House and the convention on numbers. Something like 80 new creations will probably be needed at the very beginning; but most of that requirement will be met from Peers by succession. Thereafter, it may be that some 50 or 60 new creations will be required with the change of each Government. In 1964, the year of the last change of Government, there were in fact 55 new creations, including those made by the outgoing Administration; and there has been a total of 146 since the beginning of that year.
Another aspect of patronage that has been suggested is that the voting Peers should receive a taxable salary. The Government recognise that, in the context of a nominated House, this proposal is liable to increase the objections about the extent of the Prime Minister's patronage; but the Government believe that here again this criticism has been much exaggerated. There is another side to the coin. I think it would be objectionable if, because of the absence of a modest level of remuneration from any other source, some otherwise suitable potential Member of this House were unable to be appointed. This House is not so rich as to be able to turn away people who have something to offer merely because they cannot afford to come. I think I can tell the House that no particular figure—whether it be £2,000 a year, or some other sum—has been proposed. The

859
question will be referred to an independent body similar to the Lawrence Committee.
My Lords, I now come to the independence of Members. This is something that has exercised the minds of Government and the Committee. We must evolve a system by which a Peer's right to vote, whatever his speaking or voting record, should be secure; that he should have freedom and independence. This is not difficult to achieve. Even though a Peer may be nominated by his Party, he will not necessarily support his Party or his Leader indefinitely; and it must be remembered that Party Leaders are themselves answerable directly to the electorate. Listening to yesterday's debate I found it slightly surprising that some noble Lords believe that it is the hereditary element that brings a truly independent frame of mind to this House. Life Peers and Peers of first creation have exercised great freedom and some on this side of the House have persistently embarrased the Government. I may mention my noble friends Lord Brockway, Lord Silkin, Lord Chorley, and even Lord Balfour, who, if my memory serves me aright, much to the embarrassment of the Government, brought the whole business of the Pipelines Bill to an end because the Government were not ready with the Amendments. Those Peers, Life Peers and Peers of first creation, have exercised great independence. I have not the slightest doubt that in the new House the same feeling of freedom will be available.
The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, spoke about the date of the commencement of this reform. I will leave the answer to that point to my noble friend Lord Shackleton when he replies to-morrow, but I would say to the noble Earl that we all should wish to see our business continue to be conducted with the same degree of flexibility that we now have. Therefore, if we are going to implement the suggestions in the White Paper there should not be a long period between deciding on what should be done and bringing it into practice. We have to consider those noble Lords who will have to make up their minds on whether they wish to become voting or speaking Peers.
860
In conclusion, may I say that the first question the House has to answer tomorrow is this: is reform desirable? I do not think there is any doubt that it is desirable, not only in the interests of this House but also of Parliament. Secondly, looking at the long and frustrating history of the attempts to bring about reform and having got the political Parties to agree, I think that we should not let this opportunity go. It may be that we cannot agree on everything; but if the package is right for this House and for Parliament, I think that we should seize the opportunity.
I am happy to confirm what the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, asked, that the Government will take into account all that has been said in this House and in another place. The purpose of the White Paper and of the debates was that The Government should hear these views. In the end, this is a constitutional change, radical yet revolutionary, and I hope that by what has been said we shall be able to get broad agreement in this House and in another place, so that we may look forward to having a Second Chamber that will play a constructive and major role in the evolution of Parliament in this country.
3.22 p.m.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, we started yesterday's debate with three Leaders or Deputy Leaders of Parties, and perhaps it is not surprising that we start to-day with three Chief Whips or former Whips or Deputy Whips—all of whom, by the way, speak in this House not by reason of their own merit but because of their ancestors. As befits a Deputy Whip, a great deal of what I shall say will be addressed to my noble friends on these Benches, but as they range from the extreme Centre outwards to the Right and Left, what I have to say to them will be of some use, I hope, to other Members of your Lordships' House. I thought that both the speeches that went before me were good whipping speeches, if I may say so.
I do not propose to cover more than three points. They are points on which I feel there is a danger of the wrong sort of emphasis being put. The first one, which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has already touched upon, is the question of patronage. It is suggested that a new and dangerous patronage is being put

861
into the hands of the Prime Minister. I think that it is entirely the other way round. By this new proposal the Prime Minister's patronage is circumscribed and diminished. In the past, patronage was a corrupt and hole-in-the-corner evil, and in the distant past it was not only a very corrupt evil in its relation to those who were going to be made Peers but also devious in relation to those who ought to have been made Peers but were not. My grandfather's great-grandfather sat on the Woolsack as a commoner because the chief Patron, King George II, did not like him. This was inconvenient and indeed unsuitable. His experience of being disliked by the Patron was far from unique. But under the new arrangement I do not think that that sort of thing is likely to happen to nearly the same extent.
It is not so much a question of watchdogs—and I take the Point that watching watchdogs is sometimes a pretty fruitless operation—but that the new arrangement will not be under cover and that whatever is done will be subject to searching questions. That is what democracy is really about. So, to that extent, I think that this is an admirable suggestion. I do not know how we can water down too much nomination, but I have no doubt that we shall devise means of doing that in the future. After all, this is only a temporary measure. In the meantime, so far as nomination goes, the patronage embodied in it is far more circumscribed and far better than before.
The second point which I would address to my noble friends is on the two-tier system. My noble friend Lady Asquith of Yarnbury feels that the old, the hereditary, the distinguished and the busy who do not come very often to your Lordships' House are going to become political eunuchs and that no man of spirit ought to accent such a proposition. I do not see it that way. I do not see the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, who was quoted in this context, as an eunuchoid type. I do not see any other of the distinguished Members of the House who do not come here very often in that capacity—least of all the noble and gallant Field Marshal. Influence is power, and surely speech is influence. Whereas my noble friend is worried about being a dumb voter rather than an impotent spouter, I would rather have it the other way round.
862
This is something which I think my noble friends have got wrong. The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, pointed out that neither the late Lord Attlee nor Sir Winston Churchill would have been eligible to vote. Would they have been any the less influential for that? I do not think so. Whether they had a vote or not would have been neither here nor there. I myself do not care much about the naked vote. I would rather have the chance to get up and be the spouter, but I hope not altogether impotent.
The third thing on which I want to say something to my noble friends is the proposal that the coming into effect of this scheme should be delayed until a new Parliament meets, when probably we may have a new Administration. Even such a Left Wing character as my noble friend Lord Foot, seems to me here, if I may misquote the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, to be moving rapidly and almost dangerously to the Right with the noble Marquess. There is a certain logic in saying that this might be suitably delayed. It might be said that if the Bill passes, the present Prime Minister will have to create something like 80 Peers to get the balance suggested in the White Paper right, and if the Administration were to change a new Prime Minister would then have to redress this balance, so why not leave it over until the new Administration comes in? As I say, I think there is some logic in that, but I do not feel happy about it, and I hope that the Government will not give way on this point. If we get this Bill through this Session, as I and I think most of my noble friends sincerely hope we shall, I trust the Government will not agree to the postponement until another Parliament and possibly another Administration.
I think that part of the reason for having this reform at all is the fear that the House of Lords as at present constituted might interfere seriously with the Government's legislation in the last year of their term. This I believe to be so unlikely as to be virtually impossible. Nevertheless, this is a fear, and this fear has probably motivated the desire for reform. If what has been passed through in this Parliament is postponed to another Parliament, then other fears may be generated, and in my view that would be a pity. So I hope that the Government, having got the Bill through,

863
will not put it into suspended animation for the rest of Parliament.
The White Paper, in my view, is a sensible, workmanlike consensus solution of a problem that has been so difficult that it has not been dealt with for nearly 60 years. During those 60 years the feeling of classic Conservatives, of wanting a strong Second Chamber, and that of the classic Radical, regarding any Second Chamber as useless or mischievous, have, to some extent, narrowed, and now we have before us something which is a consensus of the middle ground. "Consensus" is sometimes regarded as a dirty word, but in fact it is what English politics have been built up on. We have this workmanlike document to be going on with, which I hope will be hammered out into a workmanlike Bill; and I have every hope that the diehards on the Right and the diehards on the Left will leave it be and let it go through.
3.32 p.m.
LORD BUTLER OF SAFFRON WALDEN: My Lords, if I am short, it will not be out of discourtesy to your Lordships' House; it will rather be out of consideration for the many speakers who are to follow. I have found in my present assignation that a decision to speak shortly has brought me a temporary and transient popularity, and when I resume my seat there is a general sense of relief. I have decided after considerable thought that this scheme should be recommended to your Lordships' House for general approval. Of course, amendments may be made in the course of our discussions, and I shall suggest one or two here; but for the reasons which I shall give I do not think it would be wise to reject this scheme, which, I may say in passing, has been put forward in a very workmanlike and readable White Paper.
My first reason is that I do not think it is possible to continue as we are. It is damaging to our dignity, and also to the British Constitution, that when the Upper House, by a majority, makes a decision, on the instigation of the Opposition, for example, we should know that when it takes this line its judgment will be reversed or else lead to a minor or major political crisis. This situation is contrary to the interests of the Constitution, and
864
I do not think can continue. I am thinking of the long and tedious debates and Amendments to the Transport Bill, some of which I attended. I am thinking of the Amendments to the Leasehold Enfranchisement Bill, which I did not understand, but on which on one occasion I actually defeated the Government. I am thinking of the debate on Rhodesia, which was very heartfelt by many noble Lords on this side of the Chamber, and which also led to a major crisis of its own sort. Therefore I do not think we can go on as we are under the present constitution of the House. The alternative of abolition is absolutely unthinkable. I have always been, all my political life, a believer in the bicameral system, and I believe that this White Paper gives us an opportunity to have a good, practical and working Upper House which we ought to seize while we have the chance.
My second reason is: Are we likely to get a scheme more nearly agreed than this one? I have had many years in politics. I have studied the objections and feelings of the Labour Party in another place. I do not believe that we are likely to get a scheme more easily agreed than this one. I should also like to point out, while I am mentioning the feelings of the Labour Party, that immense sacrifices have been made by my noble friends on the Conservative Benches in your Lordships' House. These sacrifices relate in particular to the sacrifice of the hereditary principle, in which I personally have always believed.
In 1948 I suggested (and the 1948 deliberations are included in this White Paper) that it would be better to have an electoral college for the hereditary Peers (I did not suggest that there should be too many; 100, for example, would have represented the hereditary Peerage, in my view), and I am sorry that this idea no longer prevails. But I am satisfied that in the modern tempo of the world in which we live, the idea included in this White Paper, of nominating hereditary Peers for life, is a better solution than the one I favoured in 1948. Nevertheless, I am sorry about it, because I believe in the hereditary Peerage.
The main reason why I support this White Paper is because I believe in Life Peers. I was responsible, as Leader of the House of Commons, for introducing

865
the Life Peerages Act 1958. In 1964 I myself refused a very distinguished hereditary Peerage because I thought that it was better in the modern age to be a Life Peer; and my family thought so, too.
I should like to give the Government some little consolation. It was extremely difficult to get the 1958 Bill through Parliament. When I rose in my place, and made what I thought was an eloquent speech, I was opposed by no less an orator than Aneurin Bevan. He used the most opprobrious epithets about your Lordships—but, I hasten to say, about your Lordships of ten years ago, and not now. You were "rapacious", "otiose", "out-dated", "idle"— and I regret to say that in the latter part of the debate he actually used the word "lustful". I believe now that all passion is spent. There is no orator to balance "Nye" Bevan in the other place, and I believe there was no orator in my time who was ever his equal when he really got roused. When he had finished speaking, I said to the Chief Whip of the day: "We shall never get this Bill through". But, luckily, as he often did, Nye Bevan lost a certain amount of interest, and we got the Bill through Committee without too much trouble. This is a little solace and comfort to the Government, because they may be having a lot of trouble, but I still think they will get this through.
I believe that Life Peers are now the fashion in the country; and from what I have said of hereditary Peers it will be seen that I have the utmost regard for them and what they have given to our Constitution. I personally agree with the two-tier system. In my view, one of the criticisms of the Upper House since 1910 has been the diffusion of its numbers and the alleged possibility of calling up from alleged backwoods enormous numbers of people who were not interested in the day-to-day business of the House. Therefore, I think that the voting House of your Lordships' House must be compact, and a figure of 230 to 250 seems to me to be sensible.
I should like to take my own case, which has been mentioned already by two speakers this afternoon. I am, fortunately or unfortunately, doing more or less a full-time job; and the problems of young men and young women make that job even more full than it was before, although we have a fairly quiet
866
time where I live. But it is difficult for a person like myself to guarantee to attend one-third of the attendances. When the new scheme comes in, I should like to make a try at it, but I think I should fail to manage to attend one-third. But I should be very happy to have the privilege to speak, although your Lordships might not agree with the latter separation. Nevertheless, I do not think that you can give voting rights to people who cannot guarantee to make a certain degree of attendance, and therefore I would say that I do not regard myself as a "fourpenny stamp". I do regard myself as a normal Member of the Upper House, and I do know that, even with the age limit, it will be possible to go on speaking till Kingdom Come. So your Lordships know what to expect in future.
I had a disagreeable experience when I defeated the Government on the Leasehold Reform Bill—much to my astonishment because I did not understand the Amendment that I had moved. I was handed two batons in order to organise the voting. Being a new Member, I did not understand what to do. I therefore passed them to the Opposition Whips, who were fully aware of what to do on these occasions, and they nobly, with my assistance, defeated the Government. I am quite happy to rest on that for the rest of my life. I feel that that is a sufficient distinction. If I am not able to attend regularly one-third of the Sittings, I should nevertheless be very glad to vote.
My next point is that there has been a certain amount of statement in another place by critics of this plan that it is disgraceful to pay your Lordships—those who, for instance, vote regularly. I would make a plea to the Government that we should not allow payment to be a breaking point. For my own part, I believe, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has said, that a certain degree of payment is essential for noble Lords who cannot otherwise come here, and that case is quite understandable. But we should not come here for pay alone. While there should be a system of payment, which this Select Committee is going to look into, do not let us make this a breaking point that some of our critics in another place make it. I should like to say how undignified I find it at present to have to try to remember to apply for £4 14s. 6d.

867
whenever I come up from Cambridge. Fortunately for the Exchequer, I nearly always forget. When I remember, I am challenged by the Accountant as to whether I was really here, and finally I get this miserable amount. If we have a payment system, let us make it more responsible and more dignified than the one we have at present.
Now the great constitutional question arises, my Lords, whether Life Peers should be nominated. I read The Times leader on this subject, which seemed to take a very powerful line. But I do not agree with The Times leader criticising nomination. Nomination is not understood by the general public. It is in fact a system much more careful and likely to be successful than any other in the appointments to your Lordships' House. It is usually done through the usual channels; and one "usual channel" has made a brilliant speech opening the debate this afternoon, and so we ought to feel a certain amount of confidence in the usual channels being employed on both sides of your Lordships' House to assist the Prime Minister of the day in nomination. I believe that you get a very much better selection to your Lordships' House by nomination than by election. I do not believe for a single minute that election would be accepted by another place. Therefore, I believe that election is ruled out.
The Times seems to think that election by regions is a good idea. But I should honestly rather look at some of the faces I see around me this afternoon in your Lordships' House, than on ex-Lord Mayors and other people from the regions who might be elected from the regions. I do not believe that election by the regions will work. I believe that nomination will work, and I would recommend to the future powers who nominate the need to bring younger people into the House, because I know the figures about hereditary young Peers; and that is not enough. I think we want to have a younger element in the Upper House and I hope that nomination will help with that matter as well.
I shall be asked whether I am not frightened of the power of the Prime Minister. I think I have read every word about the power of the Prime
868
Minister from Walter Bagehot to Richard Crossman and Balogh, and I have continually been asked to write about it. In my opinion, when the power of the Prime Minister in this country becomes too strong and becomes an abuse he will be pulled down by the House of Commons. I have seen it happen to Prime Ministers whom I have served in my own day. The House of Commons is like a lake: it is all very well on a calm day, but when it gets excited it can do anything. The waves are greater than the Sea of Galilee. I am convinced that a Prime Minister who abuses his power is going to be pulled down, and if he abuses his power of nomination he is going to be pulled down. Therefore, although this is apparently a difficult constitutional point, my own belief is that nomination, if we examine it closely with a real knowledge of the Constitution, is the only method we can adopt for election to this Upper House.
The only other points I have to make, my Lords, are first of all that I agree with conclusion 73(g) of this White Paper, that the Government should have a small majority over the other Parties but not a majority over the whole House. This was a point made by my noble friend Lord Jellicoe: it is a very important feature of this White Paper, and it is constitutionally sound. The next point I have to put is this. Why should not Life Peers, as Peers of succession are, be entitled under certain conditions to renounce their titles? That point is not included in the White Paper. It is regarded as quite impossible, but I should like to have it considered.
The next point is about powers. I believe in the powers of delay referred to in this White Paper. I believe in the delaying power going over a period in between one Parliament and another, thereby enabling the issue in question to be discussed at a possible General Election. I believe that this increases the power of the Upper House in the new plan, rather than reducing it. I am very sorry about Statutory Instruments. I think it is an abuse, if the Government use a Statutory Instrument, that it cannot be checked and delayed by your Lordships' House. Therefore, I hope that an Amendment in that regard may

869
be able to be made in the course of Committee.
I promised your Lordships that I should be short. I have expressed my opinion as shortly as I can. To sum up, I am a Life Peer myself. I am a believer in the Life Peers principle. I believe that that is accepted in this plan. I should like to see an adequate hereditary nomination as Life Peers; otherwise, I do not think this plan will work. I hope that that will be carried on into the future to the sons of some of the hereditary Peers who sit here, whom I think we must remember to-day. But I would say to your Lordships, in conclusion, that we are not thinking about just our generation or about our autumn session; we are thinking about the immense tradition handed down through the centuries in this House, and the number of centuries we hope this tradition will last. It is because I think this plan gives a chance, with the hereditary element included, of extending that tradition that I have come here to support it this afternoon.
3.48 p.m.
LORD BURNHAM: My Lords, I ask your Lordships' indulgence on addressing you for the first time. I could have chosen a less controversial subject than the reform of your Lordships' House, but I hope that the aspect of the White Paper to which I want to refer will at least not prove to be controversial on any Party basis. It concerns the proposals for regulating the majority in your Lordships' House. The White Paper recognises that there should be no overall Government majority in a reformed House of Lords. This involves a nice calculation, but the White Paper discounts the suggestion that the balance of power would then rest with the noble Lords who sit on the Cross Benches, because—and I quote:
"They do not possess any sense of corporate identity or act in any way as an organised group, and they resist any tendency to be regarded as such".
Of course, this is true, but by inference the White Paper also suggests that these noble Lords have no consistent political views.
It would be presumptuous of me to attempt to analyse the reasons why these noble Lords choose not to be closely involved with Party politics. But it does
870
not follow that as individuals they have no political opinion. I hope I shall give no offence if I suggest that not all the noble Lords on the Cross Benches are absolutely impartial or even absolutely unpredictable. Indeed it is only to be expected that the opinions of most of them will be broadly in agreement with one or other of the Parties represented in this House. I may have some right to say this because until recently I sat on the Cross Benches when I attended in your Lordships' House, and although I have now changed my position my opinions in fact have not changed. So long as the political pattern on the Cross Benches broadly follows the Party representation approved for the House as a whole, the intentions of the White Paper will not be defeated, but I believe that any attempt to achieve this end will place the Committee which is to advise on the composition of the House in an impossible position.
The Committee will have to ask itself, "When is a Cross-Bencher not a Cross-Beneher?"—both when called upon to advise on the initial voting composition of the House, and when considering future additions to the Cross Benches. I cannot believe that it would be acceptable for the Committee to interview noble Lords in order to discover whether they leant to one Party more than to another. It would scarcely be preferable for them to analyse the political views of a noble Lord in his absence, on the basis of his public utterances or his voting record. Indeed, in the future many potential Members of this House, for example distinguished retired civil servants, whose wisdom and experience would be of the greatest value, will, by the very nature of their profession, have avoided public utterances on political matters, though they may in fact have pronounced political views.
Without too great a stretch of imagination one can even foresee an unseemly search by Party organisations outside this House for suitably distinguished crypto-Cross-Benchers, with a view to recommending them as a hidden asset for their own Party. These will be very real practical problems, and I can see no satisfactory way round them if it is really considered essential to maintain a marginal Government majority which is nevertheless not an overall majority in

871
this House. With the greatest respect, I should like to suggest that this is neither essential nor desirable.
We live in a democracy and we are governed in accordance with the will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives. It may not be the most efficient form of government but it is certainly the most pleasant to live under. It is, however, inherent in our system that a Government with a working majority in another place may not have a majority in the country, and that a very small swing in the country in the course of a Parliament could produce a working majority for a Government of the other side if an Election were held.
I believe that the White Paper has this very problem in mind in limiting the size of the Government majority in the proposed House of Lords and in making it clear that it must not be an overall majority. However, it has been my impression that both in this Parliament and the last the present balance of Parties in your Lordships' House has worked extremely well in the interests of the country as a whole. The intentions of the Government have not been frustrated by this House, and legislation has been improved. Therefore I suggest that the objects of the White Paper could be better achieved, and the problems of "Cross Bench analysis" would become much less critical if the system were deliberately designed to assure a small but clear majority for the Opposition. I hasten to add that this principle should apply whatever Government was in power. If this seems paradoxical I hope I can convince your Lordships that the principle has many merits.
No noble Lord who is now a Member of this House, and no one who is likely to become a Member of a reformed House, is going to embark on wrecking tactics in the matter of revision of legislation. Whatever their Party affiliations, they will recognise that the elected Government is rightly paramount and they will act responsibly to try to improve whatever legislation is put before them. The ultimate power of the House of Lords to throw out legislation could only be exercised if the House were convinced that the Government no longer had the confidence of the people. Such a decision could be taken only on a matter of vital
872
principle and after the most careful consideration. If the House were proved wrong, the frustration to the country of a six-months' delay would not be very serious, and the House would have learnt that the Government still retained their mandate, and would take that into account in their future actions. If, on the other hand, the view of this House were accepted, the House would have fulfilled its ultimate function as the guardian of the liberties of the people.
Any reform of this House which increases its effectiveness and establishes confidence in the country in the Upper House will have my support. Despite all the political fireworks, there is in this country a wide consensus of opinion, which is a blessing of which we should take every advantage in amending our Constitution. A system which preserves a balance and restrains excesses is the one most likely to commend itself to the people.
In the particular matter of the balance between Government and Opposition in your Lordships' House, I believe that under the present Government we have by accident reached nearly the right solution. Therefore, in conclusion I should like to ask that the problem of the reform of this House should be given further consideration by all Parties, and that the small suggestion which I have tried to put forward should also be taken into account.
3.57 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I know that the whole House will wish me to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, who has just spoken in such a delightful and reflective manner. I am sure he will not mind my recalling that his father and mine served together at Gallipoli on what Winston Churchill called "The Battlefield of Fog and Flame". They braved the same hazards. My father fell, and the noble Lord's father survived to give many years of eminent service to the country. That makes me happy to follow him.
Perhaps I may be allowed to refer to one point—and I intend to follow the excellent example of all previous speakers, including the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and to be very brief. The noble Lord, Lord Burnham, suggested—seriously, I believe—that it would be

873
highly agreeable for the Opposition to have a majority here. I am not going to follow that suggestion, but there is one disadvantage which may or may not have occurred to him but which has been in my mind. It was possible at the time of the last Conservative Government for someone like Sir Alec Douglas-Home (as he now is) to be Foreign Secretary here, and it would really have been impossible at any time during the present Government for that to happen. We could not have a Foreign Secretary here who would find himself defeated on votes of confidence which echoed round the world. I think the obvious example is make sure that a rather larger number of top Ministers than hitherto can be Members of your Lordships' House, and anyone who was anxious to bring that about (as many of us would be) would hesitate before adopting the proposal put forward by the noble Lord.
I rise to support strongly, and I hope briefly, the proposals in the White Paper so well explained by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor yesterday (and I apologise for my absence in the North), and by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, to-day. All those who have taken part in the Inter-Party talks, and particularly those who have endured to the end, deserve the highest credit. The novelist Ouida was not very strong, I believe, on the art of rowing, and she once remarked in one of her novels:
"All rowed fast, but none rowed faster than stroke".
I think we can say of the participants in these discussions that they all worked hard but none worked harder than the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and perhaps none worked quite as hard. He has been nobly supported on the Labour side by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and (for a while) by the noble Lord, Lord Champion; and across the way he has been supported by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and the noble Lord, Lord Byers.
So there has been a remarkable team effort, and it is extraordinary to think that after all these years and all the discussions and setbacks as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, wished to emphasise, there is at last agreement. No one would have forecast this a few years ago. People
874
may say that the Parties got fairly close in 1947, but I never thought we were very close at that time so I should like to support strongly what has been said by Lord Shepherd this afternoon. It would be a tragedy if this chance were thrown away, for it is extremely unlikely that in the lifetime of even the youngest Peers there will be a chance as good as this. So if this is thrown out one might say "Goodbye"to any reform of the House of Lords for many years to come.
I am not supporting these proposals only because there is agreement. Personally, like most people here, I consider agreement between the leading members of the Parities and other leading people, and agreement generally in the House, as a tremendous assumption in favour of the scheme; but it is not enough. I would not come to the House and say that whatever has been agreed is good enough for me. I favour these proposals on their intrinsic merits. I think the Lord Chancellor said yesterday—and I am sure it was true about most members of the Parties—that each had made sacrifices; and that would be true of my own Labour Party. For example, the two-tier plan is not something they would have started to fall in love with straight away.
I come to this subject rather differently. The two-writ plan in its original form was invented by Commander Burrows, and I hope that name will be remembered whenever this reform goes through. If ever one man invented a new idea in politics it is Commander Burrows. The object of the plan at that time was to ease the transition, it might be a long transition, while the existing hereditary Peers were still alive. It was to establish the rule of democracy in votes and to treat the existing Peers in a thoroughly civilised way that preserved the continuity, the courtesies and the traditions of the House. I remember advocating that scheme in 1957 and being ridiculed by the Lord Chancellor of the day, a much esteemed man. At any rate, here we are with the two-writ plan. It has now become the two-tier plan and has been developed, apart from details, in a very important sense. Here I give special credit to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, as well as to others. They gave it a further development which I

875
supported while I was still in the Government.
It is no longer intended to be a transitional plan; it is intended to be a permanent and a very desirable feature of this House which makes it possible to combine the two roles of this House—the working House and the House of eminent persons, such as the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and others who cannot come here very often. So this additional feature, which is a development of the old two-writ plan and the two-tier plan, is in my opinion entirely welcome and justified.
It may be said that this is a failure to produce any better alternative, so in a sense one might argue that this scheme is going by default. I would not deny that there are those, who may be quite a lot of people, who, whether they say it openly or in their hearts, ask the question: why reform the place at all? One or two people who have come here quite lately are almost ecstatic about this House. They did not believe there was such a heaven on earth which could be discovered by mortal man, or woman either. But, as the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said, this is a Legislature, not a club. As a club, it is undoubtedly the best in the world. I cannot go into all its charms. From that point of view no one could want anything better. But the question does arise: is it able to exert a proper degree of influence in view of the eminence and capacities of all these wonderful people gathered here?
This is a side which has troubled me for years. For the 22 years during which I was on one Front Bench or the other I was trying to persuade myself that what one was doing was of enormous importance. The Press did not pay much attention to it, but then the Press always get their values wrong. It was possible to persuade oneself that the influence of this House was very extensive. While still on the Front Bench some years ago I formed the opinion that the influence of this House on the nation was nothing like it should be—and this is even clearer when I am not able to come to this House very often. When one stands away from the House and asks how much impact it is making, bearing in mind the tremendous display of talents here, one is bound to answer the question in a way that is not very flattering to your Lordships.
876
I therefore see only one method of giving this House its proper degree of influence. I am a two-Chamber man. I want to see this House have a genuine and not just a fictitious influence, not to be just a ceremonial organisation, a facade, but a real thing, something that brings to bear all the talents and these wonderful parts that belong to so many people here. I am sure that, in practice, leaving out Party politics—though this Right-Wing and Left-Wing business comes in a little here—in the modern democratic age a House composed like this will never be allowed by British public opinion to have a proper degree of influence. That is why it is essential to rationalise the composition of the Chamber. Otherwise, people may go on making speeches to each other but the influence will be one quarter of what it could be and should be. To try to give this House a proper degree of influence and make the composition rational. defensible and respectable has been in my thoughts all along. These proposals hold the field and nobody seems able to bring forward any serious rival.
I would add one point from what might be called a radical angle—and not only Labour Party people but others also will probably agree with what I say now. In a democratic age I should have felt that I was failing totally if I had not made some effort to rationalise the composition of this Chamber within the limits of a single person's power. I should have felt that I was betraying my trust if I had not tried to bring the composition of this House into line with what we would accept as a democratic principle to-day.
Finally, my Lords, one word about the hereditary principle. There are not many of us here who would despise the hereditary principle altogether. We accept it; 99 per cent. of the House welcome it in the case of the Monarchy; so when we talk of rejecting the hereditary principle we are not saying that it could not be acceptable anywhere. We would not reject any idea of continuity at all in the economic and other spheres between father and son, so I do not want to come forward as someone who pretends to set aside the hereditary principle altogether. I fortified myself with the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, and even if the noble Marquess

877
is moving fast to the Left I am not sure the noble Earl would claim that for himself. He agrees that to-day the hereditary principle is not an acceptable basis. It cannot be. If it is not acceptable to-day it will become still less acceptable as time goes on, so we must agree that even if the question of one Party dominating the affairs were left out—and that is a strong additional argument—one is still left with the proposition that the hereditary principle must be destroyed as a basis for legislation here; and that is done under these proposals.
Going back to what I said at the beginning about the two-tier idea, I would not consider treating hereditary legislators, people who have given their lives to this House, as though they were quite worthless, or with any sort of disdain. To shoo them out of the place without giving them the chance of further service when they may have abandoned all chance of a life in the House of Commons would not be in accordance, as I see it, with civilised values. Nevertheless, as a basis for voting the hereditary principle has had its day and cannot be contemplated for a moment.
I applaud, and agree very much with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden. I think we must give great credit to the Leaders of the Conservative Party for accepting this development, for recognising—even if they have an attachment to the hereditary principle—that it can no longer figure as a basis for voting in one House of Parliament in this country. Great credit attaches to their great statesmanship, and I give them my salute. It does not seem to me that this is a case where one Party has a bargain, or where one has been "sold down the river", or where somebody has stolen a march on somebody else. It is an agreement reached by some of the most careful and genuine and disinterested discussions one could imagine.
I agree with those who say that there are all sorts of problems (some of them have been touched on) which have still to be sorted out, but in principle this is the best answer that has ever been placed before the country as a method of reforming the House of Lords. I repeat, I am sure that if this goes wrong—and I do not believe it will—we shall never see another chance in the lifetime of most
878
of us. I therefore lend strong support to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and those on the Government side, and those elsewhere who support this proposal. I implore noble Lords in this House to give it their most cordial and vehement support.
4.12 p.m.
LORD ALDINGTON: My Lords, I should like to say to the noble Earl that we must all be grateful for the tributes he paid to our Leaders on this side, but I think it would be wrong to miss the opportunity of paying a tribute to him for the part he has played and for the statesmanlike attitude he has shown to this problem. He will know that I have a strong affection for him, and from time to time differ with him strongly, but in the speech he has just delivered I find myself in almost total agreement with the general motive that has obviously prompted him. I would also join him in congratulating my noble friend Lord Burnham, on what I thought was a model maiden speech. He has one great advantage, which I do not have for the moment, of having a mellifluous voice, which woke me up the other morning on the early-morning radio giving us a foretaste of the views he had on this particular subject.
I want to concentrate my speech on one point only, and that relates to the qualification by attendance required of voting Peers, and to the effect that may have not on those created Peers who will have to decide whether or not thy are voting Peers, but, much more important, on the effectiveness and general acceptance given to the votes of the House. But before I do that, I think I am under an obligation to declare where I stand on the main issues.
First, is reform necessary? I answer that decisively, Yes; and I agree with all that my noble friend Lord Butler of Saffron Walden said. Secondly, am I content with the broad framework of the proposals before us? I answer that also, Yes, for the reasons which my noble friend Lord Jellicoe explained to your Lordships yesterday afternoon in his excellent speech. I agree wholehetrtedly with him that we have here an opportunity to build up a really viable Upper House on the basis of a broad consensus of support from all Parties. I recognise, as he did, that there are some weak

879]
points in the proposals; for example, the danger of an increase of patronage. But we can overstate that danger. I agree very much with what my noble friend Lord Balfour of lnchrye said yesterday, and what my noble friend Lord Butler said to us to-day.
But against this and other weaker points, there is this one point of great strength; the prospect of agreement by the three political Parties which will make it possible to restore the power for good of the reformed Upper House. And I think one should add to that the fact of agreement stated by the leaders of the Government in the other place and in this place, agreement between the Government and Opposition Parties, that when changes are made in the Constitution the Government should always seek to make those changes by agreement.
The delaying powers and the revising powers set out in the White Paper are important, but it is my view that the power to influence public opinion and action is even more important. I do not believe that, as a House, we have that power in any large degree to-day. Some of your Lordships influence public opinion by what you say and wherever you say it. But the House as a whole does not command the respect or influence which it has commanded in the past, and which all of us would like to see it have, however recently we have come here.
The point I want to make concerns the composition of the voting strength of the House. Here we come to the two-tier principle, and I agree with the noble Earl that a tribute must rightly be paid to Commander Burrows. I accept the two-tier system, because of the need to fashion the voting strength broadly as set out in the White Paper. But, as I will say, I do not accept that it is either sensible or necessary to have a rigid system excluding from the voting tier many created Peers, to use the words of the White Paper,
"with wide interests and experience who can make contributions of high quality, whether in general debate or in legislation, but who because they are actively engaged in employment outside the House cannot easily attend"
every day or even regularly once a week.
This point is slightly related to the point which has been made by many
880
speakers, that the absence of Peers by succession from the voting House in the immediate future, and from the House as a whole in the longer future, will reduce the number of young men here. I regard the presence of young men not just as desirable, but as essential; and essential not because we want them to do our work for us, but because we want their ideas and their votes in order that, as a House, we may be broadly representative of the pursuit of excellence in the nation as a whole. Without being immodest, I think that is what we should like to think we are. I hope those who have the responsibility of nominating created Peers will bear this point in mind.
Taking the two tiers together, and putting aside the question of young men, the White Paper's proposals certainly seem to aim at that representativeness. But that is clearly not true of the voting or working House, for in paragraph 45 there is the rigid condition of the right to exercise a vote, that a Peer should attend—and I am not quite clear what "attend" means there—not less than one-third of the sittings of the House in each Session. If he does not do that over the whole of the Session then he becomes disqualified during the whole of that Parliament.
My noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn, with all the rest of whose speech I wholly agreed, appeared to want permanent disqualification in that event. At first sight this condition may seem a sensible condition. But is it? Who will be excluded in this way, or who may be excluded? Most of those, surely, who are actively engaged outside in university education, like the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, and the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme; most of those actively engaged in the professions; most of those actively engaged in running large enterprises or estates many miles from London; and many of those with regular and active occupation in business.
I think it would be true to say that at present, as in the past, those men come here not only when they can but also when they think they are wanted and can do something useful here. Of course I accept that to qualify for a voting writ a Peer must honourably intend to fulfil his duty as a voting Peer. But is not the right way to proceed to ask of each

881
created Peer whether he wishes to accept the role of voting Peer and then to rely upon his sense of duty? To insist that all these men, as it were, "clock in "on some basis if they are to qualify will be to exclude willing men active in their own callings, men and women who work in the regions away from London. The Bishop of Chester made this point about some of his colleagues yesterday. You will also be excluding just those men and women who do most travelling overseas.
Here let me interpose two things. First, by my emphasis on the words "active engagement outside the House "I am not impugning the activeness of other Peers and Peeresses inside the House. Second, in case any among your Lordships may think I am doing a bit of special pleading for myself, let me just say this. Because I work in London I hope in normal times to be able to do much better than to attend one in three sittings. It so happens that because I have been engaged in two mergers during the last two autumns I have been absent frequently, or more frequently than I should like. Should that happen again I should certainly feel bound as a matter of duty to your Lordships to give up the voting rights if I had obtained them.
No, my Lords: I am not arguing for myself, nor for Lord Butler or other eminent university dons; nor for those who might be called provincial magnates. This should not be viewed as a personal matter. I think it has been viewed in the White Paper, and in speeches to your Lordships' House too much as a personal matter whether a Peer is a first-class or a second-class Peer. That is not the question. It is a question of first importance to the future effectiveness of the House that in its voting, as in its speaking, it should be broadly representative and should include men who are actively engaged outside the House in their day-to-day work and thoughts.
I rather agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said earlier on, that if you really follow this through it looks as if the voting strength is going to be second-class and the speaking strength first-class. That is if you read some paragraphs of the White Paper. Is that a sensible thing? Are we being sensible to give my noble friend Lord Butler an excuse for not coming here to vote? This is what might happen. I think we should look at this
882
from the point of view of the value of the decisions taken by the House, and in the end the decisions taken by the House are decisions taken by the votes of the House.
One further point about the value of the votes of men of this kind. If you want to have a House whose Members not only speak with an independent voice but vote on important decisions with that same independence, you will certainly not be weakened in your purpose by having Members who approach your problems from positions of responsibility in an active life outside here. Let me add that men actively engaged in affairs outside this House are the most likely to be feeling from day to day the interference of the Executive and therefore the most likely to be on the look-out to curb Executive power if it becomes too great.
The main argument for the need for regular attendance is to be found in paragraph 20 of the White Paper; namely, that the legislative functions of the House require regular attendance, and are not appropriate for those who can attend only occasionally. But the legislative functions are greatly helped, have been greatly helped, and I think always will be greatly helped, by the less frequent attendance of experts or men actively engaged outside, whose votes as well as voices may be important in the final result. Nor, incidentally, do I concede the implication in some of the words of the White Paper, that the amount of work that goes into the scrutinising of Bills for legislation purposes on Committee is necessarily all that much greater than the amount of work involved in preparing a speech for your Lordships' House on difficult issues of policy in general debates or Second Reading debates.
I believe that this idea that legislative functions involve near whole-time attendance and attention has done some harm to another place and would do great harm here. The idea that all politicians in legislative assemblies should be professional may one day come to be a well-respected idea But that all created Lords who vote should be professional created Lords will not, I hope, become a revered concept.
One is bound to comment that the White Paper itself assumes that Ministers will not be able to attend one Session in three, and that the Law Lords and the

883
five senior members of the Bishops' Bench might not be able to do so. It goes on to assume, apparently, that their absence is not going to weaken the legislative efficiency of the House, and so the qualification is to be waived in those cases. I believe, most sincerely, that this insistence on a rigid attendance qualification will be a great mistake and is quite unnecessary within the scheme before us. Of course it is no part of the rules of another place, and it really is quite illogican to say that the words of these Peers are important but their votes are not.
Paragraph 28 of the White Paper reads:
"Voting Peers would constitute a 'working House' in whom the effective power of decision would reside."
One does not have to go far in the White Paper to find an answer to the question: why was the qualification insisted on? The answer must relate to remuneration. I would agree at once that any Peer who is unable for good reasons to be present on more than a stated number of days should either not draw such remuneration or draw only a part of it. But remuneration and voting are, I should have thought, quite separate matters. So may I express the hope that this will be looked at again?
In case the Party Leaders, or those admirable men the Chief Whips, may be thinking that their voting strength on important occasions would suffer severely from the fact that a number of Peers would not be able to attend because of their full-time occupations, let me say just this. Those of us who have been in another place and were then still leading a fairly active life outside know well the power of the Whips and the power of conscience to bring one along to debates. I do not think that the sense of duty of noble Lords here is likely to be any less than that of Members of another place. Nor do I suppose that any created Peer who knew that he could not over a period do his duty here as a voting Peer would hesitate to resign his voting right, as provided for in the White Paper.
If, however, the Party leaders or the Chief Whips are also concerned that the abandonment of attendance qualifications may hinder the completion of the business of the House, I would, if necessary,
884
but only if necessary, advocate some small increase in the total numbers of the House as set out in the White Paper (I am thinking in terms of 10 or 20), so important do I believe it is to have among the voting House men and women who are actively engaged outside the House. That, my Lords, is the plea I make to the Government and to the House. Do not let us, in the decisions we make by our votes, no less than in our speeches, cut ourselves off from those who are actively engaged in wide areas of national life.
4.30 p.m.
LORD REITH: My Lords, I have only one short observation to make. It is to ask the Leader of the House—and as he is not here perhaps somebody will convey the message to him—whether he will give consideration to a particular proposition, and whether he will engage the help, or at any rate the interest, of others who might be equally concerned, particularly the Secretary of State for Scotland. The proposition is just this: that there should be in the reformed House a representation of the Established Church of Scotland, as there is of the Established Church of England.
4.31 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I find myself in the somewhat embarrassing position of making a maiden speech in an atmosphere where there is some doubt about my virtue. Like another noble Lord on the opposite Benches, I have once made an interjection here in debate. If your Lordships can tolerate a demi-vierge I will ask for your indulgence.
I speak as a hereditary Peer, as one of the "nonentities" of the noble Lord, Lord Denham, as one of the "random" personnel of the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, as a "backwoodsman" to be transplanted again if the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, has his way. I am also—and this is where my status becomes a little more sinister in the eyes of the distinguished compilers of the White Paper —a "well-whippable" Conservative. I should like, therefore, to take a very little time in a very long debate to demonstrate to your Lordships how so typical a figure as a youngish, Toryish, and now, I suppose, "hereditaryish" Peer need not be typical in his responses to

885
the White Paper, nor in his reasons for voting in its support.
May I begin with this question of heredity? I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, said yesterday, that the issue is really a red herring being dangled not only before your Lordships' noses, but before the nose of Parliament as a whole. The hereditary principle can only be justified if it is in a constant state of growth, of organic change. It was killed in the Life Peerages Act of 1958. Your Lordships have heard the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, speak fascinatingly on this. The White Paper simply gives it a decent, honourable, albeit slightly expensive, funeral. The whole point of handing on to one generation, even in a diluted degree, the honours achieved by another is that in this way you get the genuinely random effect, a genuine continuity, a genuinely unpredictable Chamber, and so build that unpredictability into your political system.
I am attracted by what the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, said yesterday, about the random element in the composition of your Lordships' House. But this is now largely departed, anyway, and, in any case, if we were to push the argument a little further down the logical path, we could surely, in the white hot technological Britain of the Prime Minister and of that ex-Lord, Lord Stansgate, devise a technological and, therefore, admirable process of random selection. What about Premium Bond Peers, noble "Ernies", chosen by computer on the occasion of the Birthday or New Year Honours?
The desirable features of the hereditary system have already been scrubbed out, and we are left only with the frivolous ones. Why then support the White Paper's suggestion that existing hereditary Peers may remain "fourpennies" to the grave, if not beyond. I believe that good manners, the old somewhat dusty idea of a gentleman, are critical to our political system, whatever the political positions or ideologies of the gentlemen involved. If you do not believe in gentility of this sort in politics, even if its expression often bores or frustrates you, your only clear alternative is a belief in the politics of non-compromise; in short, in revolution.
886
I do not myself feel that reform of your Lordships' House is one of the most incendiary and urgent issues facing our country, and like many noble Lords on this side of the House, and perhaps like a few on the other side, I have my very strong political suspicions of the motives of Her Majesty's Government in putting it forward at this time. I do not mean to be offensive; I understand that it is the traditional prerogatives of maidens to be on their guard. But what I feel—and I believe that I feel it as passionately as any of your Lordships—is that the greatest, the supreme, contribution that Britain cart make in foreign affairs today is to be discovered in the continuing stability of her political institutions at home, and in the courtesy and lack of violence with which she conducts her own often difficult and very contentious affairs.
Be polite to backwoodsmen and you will be polite to internal Revenue officials, to students with long hair, and even, at a pinch, to backwoodsmen with long hair. Learn to deal uncompromisingly, yet in the language and rhetoric of compromise, with those whose views often incense you and you may find that the sting has been removed from their devils' tails, and that in utterly respecting their position you may yet salvage from it something which improves your own. Your Lordships will have guessed that I am referring as mildly and, therefore, as ambiguously as possible to the scenes which occurred in another place yesterday in a similar debate on this same White Paper.
Before I sit down, let me treat very briefly with the White Paper itself. Paragraph 40 bothers me considerably, and as it is a short paragraph I am going to read the relevant part:
"Peers by succession who preferred not to be members of the reformed House would have the option to withdraw if they wished to do so; those who did would nevertheless be able to retain their titles. The option would have to be exercised within a period of one year from the date of the reform."
My Lords, it seems to me that it puts an intolerable strain on existing Peers of succession—on people like myself, in fact—that the option of withdrawal from your Lordships' House should have to be exercised within a year from the date of

887
the reform. This means that if a Peer should decide not to withdraw but after five years or so should wish to withdraw himself, in the effective, physical sense of the word, and not in the constitutional sense, he would be cast into a political limbo similar to that which used to be suffered by some Scottish Peers. He would not be able to enjoy the ordinary citizen's right to stand for Parliament. I am thinking particularly at this point of the young Peers, whose cause was so ably pressed yesterday by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury.
In another place they are suspicious as a corporate body, let alone along Party lines, of your Lordships' House. They might well argue that this is a case of existing Peers of succession having their constitutional cake and eating it, of getting "unfair" experience in your Lordships' House which might then be used to advantage in getting oneself elected to another place. My Lords, this would be as silly as saying that a prospective M.P. who went to a school or university renowned for its debating society was "unfairly" placed above another candidate with no organised debating experience at all. If our young politicians are to regain the respect which many of your Lordships seem to agree some of their elders have lost, they will need all the experience they can get, wheresoever they can get it. There are many paragraphs in the White Paper which could do with a long, hard, second look, and this, in my view, is one of them.
My second question about the White Paper concerns the issue of remuneration of Peers. Are the "fourpennies" to continue to get their 4½ guineas and out-of-town travelling expenses? Like the dog in the Sherlock Holmes story, perhaps the significance of this question is that it does not bark, that the White Paper seems studiedly to ignore it. I hope your Lordships will agree with me that the present system be continued. If existing Peers of succession are worth retaining at all they are surely worth a "fiver" or so to the taxpayer. It would be a poor Peer of succession who could not earn such a sum outside this House in the same time that he spends inside it.
Finally, my Lords, the strongest feeling of unease that I, as a newcomer, have detected in your Lordships over the last
888
two days is the same unease that is detectable in the whole country. Are our politicians becoming, not too professional. but too jealous of their own power and privilege as a professional body? We talk about "the body politic". The "image" of a politician in our days should be that of a well trained and dedicated professional man—a solicitor, say, or general practitioner—who yet finds time to keep up with specialist cases or specialist research. If noble Lords, especially younger noble Lords, think this a dull attitude, I would say let us be as wild as we can in our cultural life, in our dress; let us take all the risks we can in the arts, in architecture; let us be exciting, argumentative, impassioned in our debates about the sort of scene we want and the sort of society we want to enjoy it. But let us keep our political institutions as safe, courteous, compromising, dull, even as the present White Paper. Look around the world to-day; look at the history of this planet in even the last 28 years that I myself have enjoyed it, and you will usually find that exciting politics have a way of interfering with, and indeed destroying, exciting lives.
4.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, within the last half-hour or so I have received quite a bit of technical advice as to whether the speech to which we have just listened from my noble friend Lord Gowrie is, or is not, technically a maiden. It appears that my noble friend did utter, I am sure to the great satisfaction of noble Lords present, briefly in another debate. It was so brief on that occasion that I am advised that, technically, the speech to which we have to-day listened is in fact a maiden. This gives me an opportunity to express the pleasure we have all taken in my noble friend's maiden speech, a speech upon which I congratulate him. Personally, if asked, I would say that, whenever in future he repeats that kind of performance in this House, it will be well worth a "fiver" from public funds.
My noble friend is a graduate in Arts and Sciences of Harvard University, which to me makes him an object of awe and reverence. He himself referred to his luxuriant hair. It leads me to tell your Lordships that the other day I decided I should like to be rather more

889
"with it" and let my hair grow. Nothing happened at all. Anyhow, my noble friend has the real thing. I say to him sincerely that his intervention to-day has brought home to us, in a very crisp way, the value of the freshness and independence of mind that we get from our younger Peers by succession. I am glad to feel that if this reform goes forward we shall be able to look forward to many opportunities of hearing further from my noble friend in this House.
I want to offer my mite of felicitation to those who have participated in this historically important Conference. It had to be a compromise settlement, and as such it cannot possibly be expected that its detailed provisions will be equally acceptable or palatable to all, but I believe that it represents a timely measure of reform in the right direction. No doubt in the years to come, in the light of experience, there will be plenty of opportunities for our successors, or even for ourselves, to modify and improve whatever scheme comes into operation. Therefore, as has already been said by many noble Lords, this particular measure is a step which in all its provisions is not necessarily immutable forever.
I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, the Leader of the House, and my noble friend Lord Jellicoe on the personal contributions and patient efforts which clearly they have made during the course of these discussions. I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Carrington on the wise advice which he has offered throughout the discussions. Furthermore, I pay tribute to the work which the noble Earl, Lord Longford, put into this matter when he was Leader of the House. It seems to me, and I think many noble Lords will agree, that the White Paper with which we have been presented is an essentially fair-minded document. I should like also to offer my humble congratulations to the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, and again to my noble friend Lord Jellicoe for their speeches yesterday and what I might call their persuasive pragmatism or—if it sounds better—their pragmatic persuasiveness.
I should like to put on record, in telegraphic form, why in my humble and unimportant view this settlement should be accepted. I wish that I had heard
890
the speech of my noble friend, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden. Years ago I found myself in charge of a Department of which Lord Butler a year or two earlier had been the much more distinguished head. I learnt in those days that if ever I said or did anything different from what Lord Butler had said or did, I had to have at least twelve good reasons for it. Not knowing what he has said to-day, I find it difficult at short notice to muster those twelve reasons.
I believe this settlement to be historically important because it puts on record the considered view of the Leaders of the three Parties that a Second Chamber is needed as a component in our Parliamentary constitution. That is a point of outstanding importance and an achievement of historic importance, too. I believe that this view will be shared by the public at large in the country. To me, the case for reform is proven without any doubt. That applies both to composition and to functions. While I favoured reform in composition and functions, I was one of those who feared that in the process of reform there would be a danger that this House would be left with no worthwhile functions to perform. In my opinion that would have been an absolute disaster. I think that any reform which had that result would not have been acceptable to Members of this House. It seems to me that, in the event, the proposals which we are considering leave very worthwhile functions indeed to this House.
Anyone who knows anything about this House will testify to the dedicated, devoted and distinguished services rendered to this House by a very large number of Peers by succession; I am sure that there will be no disagreement about that. But I am bound to say that I personally do not believe that heredity alone is any longer defensible as a basis for legislative functions. That has led me personally to accept the proposed two-tier system, a device which otherwise I certainly should not have regarded with enthusiasm.
Then one comes to the question of nomination or election. It is clear that this knotty question has received profound study by the members of the Conference. We are told that the other place would never accept an elected

891
House of Lords. However that may be, the fact is that no one so far has been able to propose a method of election which would result in a Second Chamber sufficiently different from the other one. Personally, I would not rule out for ever the possibility of an elective basis. It may be that later on changes may come in local government and in regional organisation which conceivably may throw up some possible basis for an elected Chamber, but I have no doubt whatever that at present and in the immediate future the principle of nomination will continue to be the best basis. I personally have found persuasive the arguments of those noble Lords who have pointed out that the degree of patronage involved in these proposals may well prove no greater than the potentialities under the present system.
One then comes to the question of the provision of a built-in Government majority. I am not enamoured of that provision, but on the whole something of the kind may be necessary and may be less indefensible than the traditional built-in imbalance which we have witnessed in this House in the past. I believe that if the new provisions are tried out with good will, as I am sure they will be, then in the light of experience, and as we get accustomed to a reasonable, practical balance of opinion in this House, it may be possible to devise some other provision which may be better than this one. I want to mention only one point on the age of retirement. My Lords, I used to think I knew precisely what "quite old" meant, but as the years go by I find myself redefining it every few years, I have therefore no positive advice to give your Lordships at this moment, but I have worked out that my noble friend Lord Gowrie is less than half as old as I am.
Then I listened with interest to one or two noble Lords and noble Baronesses yesterday who referred to the absence of a Speaker or Chairman. We might do worse than to look at this procedure to see whether, voluntarily, we might even subjugate ourselves to some measure of control there. It has seemed to me on one or two occasions that the only alternative that we have, of moving "That the noble Lord be no longer heard"—
892
this is not a suggestion at this particular moment—is perhaps a harsh touch on the tiller to deal with what is sometimes a temporary and agreeable departure from course. But in asking for a Chairman I must say it is a little like approved-school boys asking for stricter supervision. One would want to know exactly what its nature would be before subscribing to it. But I think it might be worth looking at.
Finally, may I say that I am one of those who attach very great importance indeed to a settlement by agreement; and here in the White Paper we have, so far as the Conference goes, precisely that. When agreement has been reached as a result of the painstaking work of a group of able, experienced, and fair-minded people, then it is generally not the course of wisdom lightly to set it aside. There is little doubt today that the standing and prestige of this House has been enhanced over the past decade or two. I think part of the credit for that must go to the courageous initiative of Mr. Harold Macmillan in introducing the system of Life Peerages, which seems to me to have been an unquestionable success.
I would say in conclusion only that I feel very proud to be a humble and undistinguished Member of your Lordships' House, and to have been one for the past eight years. I have the deepest respect for the abilities of noble Lords by succession and by creation, and for the conventions and traditions of this House. I remember hearing the story of a class of small boys who were asked by their teacher how many of them wished to go to Heaven. All of them put their hands up except one small boy. The teacher said to him, "Tommy, don't you want to go to Heaven?", and Tommy said, "Yes —but not with that lot". My Lords. I shall be equally proud to find myself a Member of this House reformed on the lines that are now proposed until the age of statutory senility descends upon me; and I shall be happy to move into the uncharted future in the distinguished and comradely company of your Lordships.
4.55 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, it is a century-old privilege of the condemned man on the scaffold to make a speech,

893
though of course the Government of the day often took the precaution of assembling massed drums to prevent his being heard. I am going to avail myself of that privilege to-day; and as for the massed drums, I would draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that excepting for Lord Jellicoe and Lord Salisbury, who could scarcely have been omitted from the beginning of the debate, there were only 5 hereditary Peers in the first 23 speakers yesterday, although the hereditary Peers are the people whose fate is most at issue at the moment under the proposals contained in the White Paper. If that is not massed drums, I do not know what is. One felt that the White Paper had been put into practice almost before it had been carried by your Lordships.
None the less, I say at once that I am in agreement with the White Paper and I shall support it. I think that the politicians who have exercised the privilege of the Crown in creating hereditary Peers have themselves thrown so much mud at the system that it should not be maintained. Before I make any criticism of the House, I should myself like to pay a tribute to the Leader of the House for the work he does and the fight he put up for the House, and has done in the past, and for the way he has managed it and kept it on its course. I think we ought all to he very grateful to him, and I am glad to have the chance to say that.
Before we leave the hereditary system, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that it has not been altogether a bad system. Looking at the history of my own country, I am always astonished that the Crown, in such a very weak position in such an intensely feudal country, managed to procure and keep observed so many laws for the benefit of the poorer people. For example, I think that in 1496 we had the first Public Act providing for public education in Scotland, and that was worked entirely through the hereditary system. The Barons were enjoined and told how to set to work to ensure the education of the children of the Barony and I need hardly remind your Lordships that in Scotland Barons are people who have a hereditable jurisdiction.
In the 18th century the hereditary system did not work at all badly, because
894
the interests of the two Houses lay pretty well parallel and they agreed with one another. It was the Reform Act 1832 which marked the first difference, because the new House of Commons represented to a considerable extent the growing trade, whereas the House of Loris preponderantly represented the landed interests. That situation continued, with growing feeling between the Houses, until we got the situation of 1910 and 1911.
Before I pass from that, I should like to say that I took part as a minor speaker in the 1910 House of Lords Election, and I thought that the Conservative Party played their cards frightfully badly. If they had gone back to the Manchester speech of Disraeli fifty years before, they would have found that the posters of the enemy were their best help, because there was a lovely picture of a Peer with his crown on crooked—your Lordships will remember it—saying,"What!—tax my land?", and there were Peers all over the country getting up in the middle of 10,000 acres and saying they did not hold any land. If, on the other hand, they had gone back to Disraeli's Manchester speech they could have accepted the enemy's posters; and I think it would have been better for the country because, although the Liberal Government would have got back, they would not have had such a big majority.
By now, to-day, we are back in 1912 because in 1912 all your Lordships were constitution-mongers; and to-day we are all constitution-mongers. And while I agree with something in almost every speech that has been made so far, I am not so confident a constitution-monger because I have been through it all before. It has always seemed to me that if you are to get real modifications in the Constitution they must come about through a contest between real forces; your Constitution makes the demarcation line across which you neither wish to go nor wish the other side to trespass. I can imagine a constitutional crisis and constitutional reform taking place between the T.U.C. and the House of Commons. I think that is quite passible. But it is very difficult for me to envisage a real constitutional struggle taking place between your Lordships' House and the House of Commons, because here there is absolutely no force.

895
As a matter of fact, that has been pretty well confessed in the debate already. The noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack, in introducing the White Paper, pointed out what a tremendous part this House could play if we got rid of the hereditary system. But is that not what lawyers call "confession and avoidance"? It means that we are no use now; that we are going to have our powers somewhat diminished and that then we are going to be frightfully useful, or that the Commons are going to allow us more powers. I think that is an illusion, because I look on it as the carrot in front of the donkey— and your Lordships will realise that the only reason for the donkey falling for it is because he is a donkey. I do not think that any reform of this House will bring about an improvement of your Lordships' position in that way.
My Lords, I am entirely on the side of the White Paper. It is a step in the right direction. But I do not think your Lordships' fight in legislation to-day is worth the time and trouble you spend on it. Look at the immense amount of pains taken and the experience and learning that went into the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, on the Town and Country Planning Act and at those of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, on the Transport Act. Look at the fate of the Amendments they put down. They were none of them wrecking Amendments; but look at their fate. When you send a Bill—
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt at this point? I think the noble Lord is doing less than justice to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, because their enormous contribution was not wasted. Both Bills were improved.
LORD SALTOUN: I am glad to hear the noble Lord say that. But it is my opinion—and I am giving it—that their great ability, the pains they took and the time they gave to those Bills had so comparatively small an effect. I hope the noble Lord will not quarrel with that. Their ability was very much wasted. To have employed it outside this House and on other matters would have been better not only for themselves but for the country.
896
My Lords, I have always been of the opinion—I formed it after reflection on the experiences of 1912; and I have never changed it—that it would be far more honest to the people of this country to do away with, to abolish, this House and to let the people of this country have, frankly, the single-Chamber Government which in effect is what they have to-day. I recognise of course that the House of Commons would have to invent new stages for Bills and would have to take more time over their legislation. But I think that would be a very good thing; there is far too much legislation in this country. If you go to your lawyer and ask him what the law is, he no longer can tell you. In the days that I was talking about, the good old days, when in Scotland we had hereditable jurisdictions, every householder knew the law; to-day even the professional lawyers cannot tell you the law; there is much too much legislation. Therefore, I am abolitionist, and have always been an abolitionist, quietly; and it has never seemed to me that the work done by your Lordships' House really was worth the enormous time and trouble that was spent on it. None the less, I support wholeheartedly the White Paper and I am very grateful for the work done on it. At any rate, it is a step in the right direction.
My Lords, now, if I may, I will say just a few words about this House and the changes that I have noticed in it. What used to happen when I first came here was that in the first place everybody had to know the Rules of the House. If you broke the Rules everybody—your own side and the other side—joined in shouting "Order…" at you until you obeyed. It was not a Party matter; everybody was interested in the proper conduct of the House. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, yesterday said that he wanted a Speaker. The reason why he wanted a Speaker was that nobody nowadays takes the trouble to learn the Rules and that nobody, either on your own side or on the other side, obeys the Rules.
The other change—and I think it is the biggest change—is that when we had a debate in those days all the "big wigs" led off and there was an ancient rule—and my father told me that sixty or seventy years ago it was the regular rule—that in this House nobody said what anybody before them had said.

897
Whoever spoke gave his reasons; and it was the House, seized of those reasons, that then had to judge them. So nobody said what anybody else had already said. If you were a Back-Bencher and you got up and produced a new and valid point, you were marked; and you probably got on from that point. And it shortened the debates.
I have attended many long debates in this House. To-day everybody gets up and says exactly the same thing. I say to them, "Why do you do that, when the rule is that you do not say what anybody has said before you? You can say you adopt what has been said, or you may vary it; but you must not go on saying just the same thing." The answer I get—and it may be the Life Peerage Bill which is responsible for this —is: "Ah, you don't understand. An opinion gains weight if I enunciate it". The House that we are in to-day is, I think, not a very important body, but it contains a lot of important people. When I first joined the House—it had not quite gone downhill; the full effect of the Parliament Act had not been carried out—it was quite an important body but it contained quite insignificant people.
My Lords, I think that if your Lordships are going on—and I wish you success though I do not agree with you; for I say that you ought to be abolished —it might be a good thing to study the old rules to see whether you cannot get back some of our ancient temper in these matters. There is one small improvement I should like to suggest. It tickled me very much that the noble Lord, Baroness Asquith of Yarnbury, tripped on something very similar yesterday. It is that, whether we have a two-tier House or not, voting or non-voting Peers, it would contribute greatly to the quality of the speeches here if we made a rule that nobody who took part in a debate should vote in it. Then every speech would be a speech of persuasion.
I have said what I want to say. I thought that the abolitionists ought to have a show. There is one other point I would put about abolition before I sit down. The people of this country think that they have a bicameral system when, in effect, for legislation, they have a unicameral system. They are deceived. I hate political shams and I want to get rid of that one. That this is a political
898
sham I can prove to your Lordships. In another place—it is right to use "another place" in this sense—there are people who are so deceived that they want to abolish your Lordsips' House because they think we have so much power. However, I shall certainly vote with the Government on this White Paper. I congratulate them and I am grateful to them for the work they have put in on it.
5.12 p.m.
LORD STAMP: My Lords, I, of all people, do not mind being a "fourpenny stamp", but I do have serious reservations about some of the proposals contained in the White Paper, many of which, of course, at this stage of the debate have already been stressed by other noble Lords. Like others, I dislike intensely proposals that must inevitably increase the power of patronage of the Prime Minister of the day, particularly if these involve paid appointments. The fact that these appointments would be made largely from Members of another place would have two further consequences. This House would be very largely composed of the elderly, who would not be affected by the retirement provision that applies to voting Peers. Also, the intensification of the Party political atmosphere, which has been noticeably increasing since I joined your Lordships' House 27 years ago, would be further accentuated. I do not want to see this House becoming more and more a pale shadow of another place
On the other hand, I do want to see this House making the fullest possible contribution to Parliamentary democracy in the light of modern needs. To bring this about, it is essential to take into account certain trends that have become very apparent in the country in recent years. Undoubtedly there is an increasing disillusionment with our Parliamentary system, a feeling that Parliament is becoming more and more out of touch with the people. I do not propose to go into the reasons for this, but it is unquestionably a fact. I believe that this feeling could be mitigated if there were some way of broadening the representation in Parliament so that as many shades of opinion and walks of life as possible could have a say in our affairs. This broadening of representation would have to take full account of the increasing demand

899
of the youth of the country to be heard and also of the need that the different regions should be fully represented.
I would therefore strongly support the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, yesterday: that a third tier or category be added to the proposed structure of the reformed House, composed of Members appointed for a limited period—namely, the life of a Parliament, or even a single Session. My proposals, though, are much more radical—even revolutionary. I feel that these Members should be nominated from societies and organisations of recognised standing, representing the widest possible range of interests. There would be representatives from youth organisations, including nominations from the union societies of our universities; representatives of all sections of religious thought, including those of non-Christian religions; representatives of the coloured community, a particularly important section at this time; representatives of the professions, of the Press, of industry, of the trade unions, and so on. Nominations should be by ballot and not on an ex officio basis.
This category of Members would have the same responsibilities, rights and remuneration as voting Peers, and would, of course, hold the balance of voting power. Their inclusion would involve some increase in the size of the voting House envisaged, but this might be offset to some extent by a reduction in the number of Life Peers created. Some Members of the third tier of proven ability might be given Life Peerages after their terms of office had ended. This would provide a valuable source of recruitment to the permanent voting membership of the House and would reduce the number of political appointments made from another place. It might be that such Members could be elected by this House, thus reducing the extent of patronage possible. Obviously, not all organisations could be represented at one time but each should feel that from time to time it would be able to make its views known and play a part in the government of the country. The gain in prestige of Parliament from the people feeling that they belong in this way would be enormous.
This proposal need not in any way threaten the sovereignty of the Commons.
900
The powers of the reformed House should be as suggested in the White Paper, and the elected representatives of the people as a whole would have the last word if there were to be any difference of opinion. One would hope, though, that they would welcome expressions of opinion from a cross-section of the people on issues, some of which might not have even been considered when they were elected to Parliament. Some might feel that the selection of such representatives would present an insuperable problem, but I believe that if there were the will, a way could be found.
I suggest, very tentatively, that it might be as follows. It would be necessary to draw up an electoral roll, consisting of societies or organisations entitled to send representatives. This would be divided into certain broad categories, such as I have suggested, bearing in mind the need for a fair regional distribution. Within these categories representation might be decided, perhaps by the societies or organisations themselves that apply for representation and have minimum qualifications, by means of a vote by ballot. Alternatively, Parliament might make the selection.
Representation at any one time would of course be kept within a maximum figure of, say, 50 seats to start with. That figure would be gradually increased as the hereditary element in the House diminished. Eventually, with the disappearance of the last hereditary Peer, if the age limit for voting were removed, as I personally should like to see, the House might revert to a two-tier system, composed entirely of voting Members, some appointed for life and some for a limited period. The three-tier system could therefore be regarded as essentially transitional. If this plan were adopted, remuneration would have to be dependent on regularity of attendance, though not necessarily linked with day-to-day attendance as at present.
Such proposals may seem to some to be far too radical, too idealistic and even fanciful. I believe, though, that they embody a vitally important principle, giving a new meaning to the phrase "representation of the people". This is not a time for half-measures but a time for fundamental changes. We are legislating for the future as well as for

901
the present. I am convinced that the need for such an extension of the membership of a Second Chamber will become more and more evident, particularly when the hereditary Peerage has been eliminated. Our country has led the way in the past in the development of Parliamentary democracy and this is an opportunity to do so again.
5.20 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Longford, in characteristic fashion, praised those who participated in the work of producing this White Paper and the scheme we are now considering. I join him in that praise. Those who have participated from this House and from the other place, who have not been mentioned so far, have done an extraordinarily good job of work. But I am bound to say, from my personal knowledge, that if any single person is deserving of praise, and ought to be remembered for his persistence in influencing and in persuading the Cabinet to embark upon this Inter-Party Conference, that person is Lord Longford. He did a remarkable job, which he had set his mind upon doing when he became a Minister, and by his persistence and persuasiveness has managed to bring it to this stage. I am full of praise for that effort.
The White Paper, my Lords, has presented me with something of a challenge. About 18 months ago, on April 12 of last year, at column 1317 of Hansard, I said towards the end of a speech on Lords Reform:
"My Lords, despite all I have said in favour of this House, as at present constituted, I would end the system that gives it a built-in majority; I would end the hereditary system, which is repugnant to me—although I have admitted some of its advantages—but, like so many who have considered what sort of Second Chamber we should have, I cannot make up my mind what to put in its place. Every system that I have been able to study seems to me to have disadvantages which far outweigh its advantages."
I ended by saying in that context:
"I have yet to be convinced that change, except in the limited aspect of Statutory Orders, is either desirable or necessary."
Clearly, what I have had to do in relation to the proposals now before us is to consider whether the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, and I must admit that I think they do. I think this
902
is a scheme deserving of support by this House. If it is thought that I have been on the road to Damascus and have been converted by a blinding light, I can assure noble Lords that the conversion was not in the dazzle of the possible receipt of a salary, for even if under these proposals a salary should come my way, the receipt of it is likely to be of so short a duration as to matter but little to me. Clearly, age is the factor in this connection.
What I like about these proposals is the simple fact that they appear to me to accord with the mind and the temper of the people of this country. The elimination of the hereditary Peer from the right to participate in the government of the country is to happen; but it is to come about in an almost painless way. That, I believe, accords with the mind, the temper and the feeling of the people of this country, who in my opinion are a kindly people. The built-in majority for one particular Party is to disappear, and that, too, without too great a departure from the past. The House will remain conservative, with a small "c"; and perhaps that is right. Old men and (dare I say it?) old women are naturally conservative.
But there is the safeguard for the elected House in these proposals that even if that House is revolutionary it will be able to get its own way in the end. That is as it should be. This House will remain what it has been in the past, and I hope to some extent will be increasingly so in the future—one which will be able to wave a cautionary finger at the other place. Wise men will still be able to come to the counsels of the nation without necessarily becoming full-time politicians. How I should hate to see the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, become a full-time politician! But how I like to see him here, as indeed I like to see the noble Lord, Lord Butler, from whom we heard this afternoon such a marvellous speech. I have always been a little afraid that any reform of this House might people it solely with full-time politicians, and I welcome the fact that, under the proposals that we are now considering, this will be avoided.
The proposal for the two-tier system appears to me to be both ingenious and also kindly to those of us who not become voting Peers. Perhaps I, too,

903
may join with the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, in a word of praise for Mr. Burrows, for the proposals which he put up and which have eventually been embodied in this White Paper.
The disadvantages—and, of course, there are disadvantages—in this Paper, are, as I see it, that, despite everything that has been said to the contrary, there will inevitably be an increase in patronage in the hands of the Prime Minister and of the Party managers. And do not forget the Party managers in this. In some circumstances, I might have been afraid of my Whips, but because of my age I do not care. But Party managers will matter in this connection, and we must not forget this. Patronage is considerable now, with only titles and membership of this House at stake and involved. How much greater will it be when to titles are added salaries! A much greater element of patronage will enter into it. I am bound to say in this connection that when yesterday I heard many hereditary Peers speaking so strongly against the patronage element in these proposals, I could not help reflecting that they are in this House as a result of patronage conferred upon their ancestors and upon the privilege of their birth. So in this case, if patronage ought to be decreased, patronage plus privilege certainly ought to be decreased.
In the matter of the manning of this House—and this, as I see it, is a serious point—I should much prefer an element of patronage with certain safeguards (and safeguards are necessary) to the creation of an elected Second Chamber or one produced by the sort of scheme propounded this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Stamp. I believe that this would produce the best sort of Second Chamber for the purposes that we all have in mind: and it must not, would not and cannot be under this system something that will rival the other place.
I am bound to say, my Lords (and I shall not get many "Hear, hears!" perhaps from behind me on this) that I have considerable doubts about putting so much power in the hands of the Cross-Benchers, the Law Lords and the Bishops. For, taking the figures in paragraph 48 of this White Paper, it is obvious that they will be standing in the
904
middle of the see-saw, thus bringing about to some extent the same sort of situation that I hated to see in the other place—that of a comparatively small group standing in the middle of the seesaw. Thank heaven! that up to now these Cross-Benchers have not been an organised Cross-Bench. But we never know what might happen in the future. The Cross-Benchers should certainly have influence, but not deciding power.
A further disadvantage that I see about this White Paper is that unless Party managers and others are careful in the selection of Life Peers we shall all be greybeards, something which under the hereditary system the accident of death prevented. For, as we have seen, it is the case that by succession many young men have been brought in, and we have seen comparative youth in this House. The maiden speech that we listened to this afternoon is an example of the accident of death bringing to this House a young man who I am sure will be an ornament to it in the future. Here I agree completely with what the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, said.
Concluding, my Lords, I am bound to say that the advantages in this White Paper appear to me far to outweigh the disadvantages. I have said previously in my speech that these proposals, taking them all in all, are in accord with the mind and the temper of the British people. I believe that to be so because they are evolutionary rather than revolutionary.
5.30 p.m.
VISCOUNT ROCHDALE: My Lords, I have had the privilege of listening to a very large number of speeches during the last two days and account myself extremely fortunate to be among those who sit in this House to-day to hear this momentous debate, because it is indeed a remarkable debate. The speeches have ranged over the whole spectrum of the subject we have under discussion, from abolition, one might say, at one end, to retention at the other. But, in between, the vast body of speeches seems to have accorded a very large measure of approval to some change and, for the most part, to the change outlined in the White Paper.
There is one point I particularly want to make which came out more yesterday, although it has been referred to to-day.

905
The question is: "Why do we want to do anything now? Why do we want change now? There is no crisis"—so the argument goes. But, my Lords, we are debating an important matter. It is not a matter that relates merely to the House of Lords; nor is it merely a matter that deals, perhaps, with the latent disagreement between the two Houses of Parliament. This is a matter which concerns the whole country and is of transcending importance. If one is going to try to improve something of such importance, surely one does not choose a crisis time to do it; one chooses a time when there is, we hope, comparative calm. Then all concerned sit around a table to see whether they can hammer out the best possible piece of new machinery that the wit of man can devise. In point of fact, this is what the Leaders of the three Parties did, and in my view they came to an excellent result, which is shown in the White Paper. I should like to join with other noble Lords who have congratulated all those concerned for the very thorough and very valuable piece of work they have contributed to the country.
While I agree that the present House in its existing form has often done a very good job of work, every institution in one's experience is capable of improvement, and this goes for our own House as much as for anything else. Certainly to the outsider in the country, who is largely without knowledge of what goes on here and regards this House as an outdated anachronism, it is designed to perpetuate the privilege of a few at the expense of the wishes of the electorate. Surely, if that is the view, something needs to be done. I do not agree that that view is at all correct, but that is the view. I think the use of the word "privilege" in that context is wrong. When I first sat in your Lordships' House, as an hereditary Peer, I recognised that I had a privilege; but it was much more a responsibility. I sat here feeling in a sense somewhat awkward, because I sat here through no fault of my own and through no work or anything else I had done to deserve it.
As regards the view that this Chamber has acted at the expense of the electorate, other noble Lords have pointed out that, certainly owing to the skill of the Leaders of both sides over the last 25 years or so, and the co-operation of their fol-
906
lowers, it can be truly said that the wishes of the elected Chamber have not been thwarted. Indeed, we could say teat the hereditary element may well have strengthened the sense of responsibility which has existed in this House. Be that as it may, it is not good enough for a Second Chamber merely to act in a responsible and skilful way. In these days, when so little is taken for g ranted and so much that is good is held up to ridicule, the House must also be seen to be the right type of Chamber and be regarded as such by the people of the country as a whole.
One noble Lord yesterday, in referring to the excellent way in which your Lordships' House had acted in the past, used the phrase, "The proof of the pudding is in the eating". But, with respect, I think that that is quite an inapt analogy in this case, because the average elector in the country, far from being able to taste the pudding, cannot even nibble at it; he does not know what is going on. All he gets is a very wrong picture of the House. It is for this reason that I personally recognise the need for change now. Indeed, I rather regret that something was not achieved in 1948, when we came so close to agreement on the matter.
It is against these general remarks that I should like to make one or two observations on the White Paper. I realise very well that in discussing the White Paper one cannot really separate composition from powers. I make that reservation because I want to say something only about composition, and I do not want any of your Lordships to think that I do not realise that composition and power go absolutely hand in hand. Granted some change is necessary, do these proposed changes go too far, or do they not go far enough? My own view is that these proposals are to be regarded as no more than a single step; certainly not as the final step in the progressive adjustment of Parliament to suit changing circumstances. Over the last few years we have had a number of other changes, which are referred to on page 32 of the White Paper. I have no doubt that other changes will go on, even though we are dealing with this matter as permanent, not temporary—I accept that. Other changes will go on, and I say that hopefully rather than

907
regretfully, because however much political Parties may disagree on many topics—and it is right that they should in order to argue out the best solution —when it comes to the structure of Parliament I feel passionately that moves must be effected, so far as we can possibly make them, by agreement.
This is not to recognise any timid approach, but to recognise that we should attack this problem step by step, attempting to move only so far as at the moment we can reasonably see. That is what I think the present proposals in the White Paper amount to. And this is in keeping, surely, with our unwritten Constitution, which over the years has allowed changes in our Constitution to take place. In fact, the more I study the proposals the more I recognise that the resulting changes which will emerge in the course of a few years are very far-reaching, even if in the immediate future their lull extent may be masked by the transitional arrangements which are referred to in paragraph 49(c). I think that these transitional arrangements are immensely important. This is a time when, irrespective of which Party may be in power, many changes which stem either from technological, economic or humanitarian origins are urgently being considered all round, and are bound to be the subject of legislation. As I see it, despite the fact that we may all agree that recently Parliament has had too much legislation thrust upon it, Parliament will be under continuing pressure, and unless we have a period of transition and continuity of operation this pressure may easily prove too much for it.
As regards the two-tier system, I am afraid that I do not agree with those who regard the non-voting Peer as second-class. It seems to me to be an admirable suggestion. I ask myself: what are the reasons which might make one a non-voting Peer? Age will; but there is nothing wrong in that. In nearly every other organisation, including limited companies, there are age limits, and one has to accept them. If it becomes a question of option, of choosing whether to be a voting Peer or a nonvoting Peer, the choice is one's own, and it depends what other activities one feels bound to take part in, which would pre-
908
vent one spending sufficient time to qualify to be a voting Peer. So I do not worry about the so-called "second-class" Peer. This seems to me to be an admirable arrangement.
With regard to the question of patronage, I agree with those who say that the criticism has been overdone. Why do we criticise it? It may be thought that I am being a little naïve in what I am going to say, but surely we criticise this question of patronage because we are afraid; we have a suspicion that whoever may be the Prime Minister of the day may possibly use it in an improper way. But if we approach all our problems on the basis of suspicion, surely we shall get nowhere. We need to approach problems on the basis of trust, and do our best to see that the machinery is there to ensure that the trust is properly used. To do everything on the basis of suspicion seems to me to be entirely unlike our national character, and it will not be at all helpful.
There is just one point on the question of nomination. I agree with the proposal that Peers should be appointed to this House by nomination but, like many other noble Lords, I can foresee a difficulty when it comes to ensuring that there is a reasonable proportion of younger Peers in the House. How do we do this? One noble Lord yesterday said that this problem was just a red herring. I certainly do not agree with that. I think it is important, but not as it has been in the past. It is increasingly important for the future: and I say that because I am very much alive to the growing ferment and emanicipation of youth in this country to-day, and we certainly want to know, or at least to be not too far remote from, what youth is thinking to-day. I believe that we could easily bury our heads in the sand and think we know when in fact we do not really know at all.
Considering the question of remoteness I notice that in paragraph 47 of the White Paper reference is made to mathematical models of the future House and how it would turn out. I wonder whether these mathematical models could be used, bearing in mind the experience of the past twenty or thirty years, and with the help of a computer, to see what the

909
average age of this House might be expected to be in, say, twenty years' time. I believe that the average age would turn out to be very much higher than most of us imagine; it would give us a shock and would show how extremely remote we could find ourselves from the thinking of youth.
How do we deal with this question of getting more young people? And, if I may say so, I do not think that any noble Lord, in the speeches I have heard, has referred to young Peeresses. In my view it is just as important to have young Peeresses as young Peers.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
VISCOUNT ROCHDALE: I say that with apologies to any Peeresses present, but I am sure they would all agree with me that this is an important thing. But how do we get them? I cannot go along with many of my noble friends who suggest that the way to do this is by the hereditary system. I might perhaps venture to mention a suggestion, without necessarily putting it forward, which would use their arguments but not their conclusions. It might be for consideration whether the eldest sons of created Peers might have a limited option of sitting as non-voting Peers. This would be a very much smaller field to draw from and it might go some way to help the situation; but I am not necessary saying that it is the right answer. However, I do urge that, in one way or another, when the legislation is being drafted consideration should be given to this matter. It may be that the answer is not to have it in the legislation but to have it in the administrative arrangements which will have to be set up to advise the Prime Minister on the nominations.
Whatever else is done, I should not like to see young Members of your Lordships' House coming here as delegates from some organisations, because this is not a House of delegates: this is a House of individuals. And long may it remain so!
My Lords, having said that, I will end by saying that I support the proposals generally in the White Paper. I agree with others that there are points which need attention here and there. I accept the principle of nomination, as opposed to election. I cannot see that any elected
910
Chamber would be content with the powers that are now being given it; nor would any House of Commons agree to give it vastly more powers. I also very much doubt whether an elected Second Chamber, even if it were indirectly elected, could be sufficiently independent to wield that moral influence and ascendancy which must be the main weapon of a Second Chamber which, although having important revising responsibilities, should in my view be the focus of forward-looking national debate.
6.49 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I intend to speak for about two minutes on the subject of the White Paper in general, and for a little longer on matters which touch on Scotland. I do not much like some of the proposals contained in the White Paper, for in essence soon we shall become a House of placemen. When I decided yesterday that I would use this word I looked it up in the Oxford English Dictionary and found it was qualified by saying that placemen were chosen without regard to fitness. Therefore I will qualify what I say by a recognition that while all of us will become old, some of us will be fit. But given a decision to do away with hereditary representation and tite fact that the process should be gradual for the well-functioning of the House, I do not see any obvious alternatives to those of the White Paper. In some degree as a stop-gap, there will be the Commission on Constitution. It should work, and our thanks are particularly due to all those who have worked so long and so hard to produce it.
There is one point on which I believe almost all your Lordships are deeply worried, and that is the question of youth. There have been various suggestions as to how we may deal with this. The noble Lord, Lord Walston, made mention of it in his speech, and the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, has just touched on it. I throw out one other idea for consideration, which is that the sons and daughters of hereditary cr Life Peers, when their fathers—or in certain cases their mothers—die, should be allowed to come to this House for one Parliament and to speak. Then, if they prove themselves, they could become nominated Peers, and, if not, they would

911
disappear forever—at any rate from this House.
Let me now turn to the reason why I am addressing your Lordships, namely, the question of Scotland. Clause 50 recognises this when it says:
"There are strong constitutional arguments based on the presence of Scottish peers in the House of Lords ever since 1707, and practical arguments arising from the existence of separate Scottish law, which make it particularly important that the reformed House should include a suitable number of Scottish peers."
There are certainly strong constitutional arguments. The Act of Union says in its Article 23:
"That by virtue of the Treaty of the Peers of Scotland at the time of the Union sixteen shall be the number to sit and vote in the House of Lords."
It goes on later to say:
"… this Act of Parliament … shall be held and observed in all time coming as a fundamental and essential condition of any Treaty or Union to be concluded betwixt the two kingdoms without any alteration thereof or derogation thereof in any sort for ever."
Those are strong words, my Lords.
It has been argued that the Act of 1963 did away with the Scottish Representative Peers when it opened the door to all Scottish peers, but I wonder whether that is legally correct. The whole is greater than the part, but surely the right of the part, the right of the 16 Scottish Peers, remains. I quote again from the Act:
"… a fundamental and essential condition of the Treaty or Union in all time coming …".
Perhaps we shall need to have reference to that body which the Government recognise to be a suitable guardian of Constitutions to clear up the question I have in mind—the Privy Council.
Having made the point, I prefer to put it aside for the time being and come to the meat of the problem which worries me. Clause 50 of the White Paper says:
"There are strong constitutional arguments, based on the presence of Scottish peers in the House of Lords ever since 1707, and practical arguments arising from the existence of separate Scottish law …".
Indeed this is true. Scotland has its own criminal law; its own laws of succession; its own system of land tenure and its own system of education, of which we are properly proud. It also has laws upon many other things which are peculiarly
912
its own. Only last week the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, told us, when introducing the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Bill, why it was absolutely necessary to have such a Scottish Bill. In brief and uniquely, there have to be special Scottish Bills to deal with many things which affect the lives of the people of Scotland, and these Bills are often technically, in their background and their effect, specially known to those who live in Scotland, as opposed to those who, like myself, are London-based. By their lives and work, such Scottish-based Peers —be they Life Peers or hereditary Peers —cannot and should not be expected to qualify to vote under the one-third attendance Rule.
As the White Paper stands, this means that in practice Scottish Bills—and they could easily be certified as such—could be voted upon at all stages only by the few Scottish Peers who are London-based, plus the far, far greater number of English Peers, who know little or nothing about the matter. This would be a gift to the Scottish Nationalists for, I repeat, these Bills affect the daily lives of the ordinary man in Scotland. Further, I suspect it is a breach of the Act of Union. Various ways round the difficulty can be suggested, but I do not propose to put them forward to-day. The Scottish Peers' Association has set up a small unofficial all-Party group who are anxious to go into this problem with the Government if, as I much hope, the Government welcome help in finding a solution.
I want to make very clear that I am not talking about the general problems of regional representation, be they those of the English, Welsh or Scottish Regions or those of Northern Ireland, to which the Government attach the greatest importance, as is to be seen from paragraph 23 of the White Paper. Nor am I concerned with the issues of national importance which affect the whole of the Kingdom and on which, I hope, one and all—be they English or Scottish, Life Peers or hereditary Peers, voting or nonvoting—will play their part. My point arises because the Scottish laws are different from English and Welsh laws. Scotland is literally a law unto itself.
My Lords, I would finish as I began. I do not like the White Paper too well

913
but I do like the honey in Appendix II, and I will vote in its favour if, as I trust, it recognises the special Scottish problems about which I have spoken and if the Government welcome suggestions for the solution of those problems. If not, then I and, I hope, many other Scottish Peers will at least abstain or even vote against it.
5.58 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Perth, I intend to vote in favour of this Motion, expressing general approval of the White Paper. But this debate is meant to give us all an opportunity of criticising the White Paper, and of making suggestions for its improvement which may or may not be considered by the Government. I should like to summarise very quickly what seem to me to be the chief defects in it. There is the timing, the age limit, the exclusion of hereditary Peers from attendance as well as from voting, and the perhaps rather artificial balance of Parties envisaged in paragraph 48.
On the first point, timing, the case was put very well yesterday, and quite sufficiently, by my noble friend Lord Jellicoe. I have only to acid this. Since my noble friend spoke it has been argued that your Lordships and the other place agreed in 1958 and in 1963 to make alterations in our composition, and that we did not wait for the next Parliament until they took effect. My Lords, I do not think the parallel is a good one, because in 1958 what we did was first to include Life Peers and, in 1963, a wider number of hereditary Peers who had not previously been given a Writ of Summons. Here we are excluding, or rather diminishing, the functions and duties imposed by the Writ of Summons which was issued at the beginning of this Parliament by the Queen to all your Lordships, and I think it would be constitutionally more proper to wait until the next Parliament before a new kind of Writ with other duties is issued.
About the age limit, I would only say a brief word. In paragraph 44 it is proposed that for voting Peers there should be an age limit of 72, and in paragraph 45 it is proposed that this restriction should not apply to voting Peers who are Members of the Government. I do not know whether that
914
distinction will stand up to critical examination. If it had existed in the last Parliament it would have prevented the late Lord Alexander of Hillsborough from leading the Opposition, and what an awful waste of first-class, genuine, spirited human material that would have been. if it were applied to the other place it would have taken ten years off the active political life of Winston Churchill, David Logan, and, not least, of Mannie Shinwell, who is still going strong and who is one of the principal opponents of this White Paper in another place—but probably not because he is afraid of being superannuated when he comes to this House.
In this country it is now usual for certain professions such as schoolmasters and civil servants to have a retirement age which is compulsory, although in the case of civil servants many get far more important and lucrative work after they have retired which shows that their ability has not diminished. But, my Lords, Parliamentary work is not a profession, and I hope it never will be regarded as a profession. Men and women who are walling to give active and continual political service ought to be the best judges and the only judges of the time when they think they should retire from that activity, and I must say that I find the argument in paragraph 44 of this White Paper, which implies that it will be necessary to do this because people might not retire when they feel they ought to retire in order to get more money, is unworthy and rather degrading.
While compulsory retirement might deprive this House of the active service of old men, my next point of criticism is that the abrogation of the right of hereditary Peers to attend even without voting will deprive us of the advice of young men. I entirely agree, and I think most of us do, that in our modern society hereditary Peers should not necessarily have any right to vote in Parliament, and I think the two-tier plan proposed in this White Paper is a very good one. But why should any Peer not be allowed, if he is able and willing to do so, to come and give his advice? It is not as if there were any great personal advantage in doing so. For anybody who lives any distance from London and who is busy in some other occupation it is a great inconvenience to come here, and the expense of doing so is always greater than

915
the expense allowance. Limitation of the voting Members of this House is perfectly reasonable but limitation of the right to speak in Parliament, even in a debate like this with 120 speakers, can do no real good and it may deprive the country of independent counsel which may sometimes be of more value than the advice of nominees. I think the idea of having Government by superior persons is a Chinese one. It is not a British idea. I do not mind having some superior persons in this House but I should like to have a few ordinary persons, too.
In regard to paragraph 48, which deals with Party balance, I do not altogether like the very carefully calculated proposals about that, which of course cannot be embodied in legislation. I think it is a very good thing that the supporters of a Labour Government or a Conservative Government in your Lordships' House should not be greatly out-numbered by the supporters of the Opposition, and the Crown on the advice of the Prime Minister has always had the power to correct that situation if necessary. It was done as long ago as 1712, when Queen Anne dismissed her Whig Ministers and sent for Lord Bolingbrooke to form a Tory Administration. They had not a majority in the Lords and Queen Anne created 12 Tory Peers so that the Government which had a majority in the House of Commons should not be frustrated.
I should not mind the White Paper saying in general that those who have the duty of advising the Crown on the creation of new Peers should have some regard to the balance of Parties in the House of Lords, but it seems to me that the thinking of the White Paper about this is a little too subservient to the prevailing conception of Party Government. Although Party organisation may be a necessity of democracy in the present circumstances, I think a great centralised monolithic Party machine, or two great centralised monolithic Party machines, can be as great a threat to liberty as a great monolithic bureaucratic machine. I thought the Lord Chancellor's reference yesterday to the use of a computer in order to get information about this was a little ominous. I do not want Parliament to be computerised, and I do not want to see a political convention—it
916
would only be a political convention—established which is so meticulously pedantic in its figures of Party balance as paragraph 48 of this White Paper.
May I conclude with a word of praise for the White Paper? I like the paragraph to which my noble friend Lord Perth has been referring, paragraph 50, which deals with the special position of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I am glad the Government have realised that this is of special importance. I think the further one gets from the capital the more necessary it is to pay attention to this factor in the composition of the new House, especially perhaps in regard to the non-voting Peers.
If a non-voting Peer lives within 50 or 100 miles of London, and feels he can help by coming and giving advice without attending very regularly, it is not always too difficult for him to do so. But in the case of those who live in Scotland or other places a long distance away—and we all know the difficulties the usual channels have in arranging the business a long time in advance—it is very difficult for enough Peers always to come when their advice would be needed. I would not ask the Government to give Scotland more than its due proportion of voting Peers, but I think there is a case for giving more than our numerical proportion of non-voting Peers, to come here as often as they can, without attending regularly, and advise us and give us the benefit of their experience and knowledge of Scottish matters. That is often much more important, I think, than walking through the Lobby. Probably a great many of my noble friends from Scotland do more good with their tongues than with their feet in this House.
In the old Parliament of Scotland, before the Union, all Scottish Peers and all the Commons sat together in one House: we were unicameral; there was no apartheid, no segregation like we have here at Westminster. They were all one body sitting and debating, deliberating together in the national interest, and they had no constitutional crises with each other. Of course it was not always very easy for Scottish Peers to get to Parliament whenever it met, but I certainly think there is a case for providing, in the national interest, that all future hereditary Scottish Peers should be given the opportunity of becoming non-voting

917
Peers. I think that would be a good thing for Scotland and for the United Kingdom, and I should like to put it to the Government that the ancient duty of Peers in Scotland to attend Parliament whenever they could, and to give advice and counsel to the Government on questions of national importance, should still be continued, for all time to come.
6.13 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR OF GRYFE: My Lords, I am tempted to pursue the discussion of the rights and privileges of Scottish Peers, but since the noble Earl has indicated that the Scottish Peers will be negotiating with the appropriate authorities for adequate representation of Scottish interests I would be content to leave it there. I would hope, however, that in the reconstituted House—and provision is made in the summary of the conclusions on page 28 that
"The reformed House should include a suitable number of Peers able to speak with authority on the problems and wishes of Scotland …"—
all Scottish Peers who would be nominated would be able to fulfil the requirements in this House that are demanded of all other Peers who will deal with affairs in this House. I should not imagine that it was an undue hardship to request that Scottish Peers, along with other Peers, should attend one-third of the Sittings of the House. I think it would be important, too, for noble Lords to try to define what is a Scottish Peer, because in recent meetings of the Scottish Peers there were a fair number of Scottish Peers who had a somewhat remote connection with Scotland. I leave the matter there because, as I say, it is to be discussed with the Scottish Peers Association and their representatives.
I want to deal this evening with the basic issues that arise in this White Paper, and I hope that none of the noble Lords from Scotland will feel induced to vote against the Motion because there are no specific provisions in the White Paper for the rights of Scottish Peers. I think it would be unfortunate if this major constitutional reform were not to be seen in the broader context of changing the Parliamentary system, the legislative machine in this country. I am a new Member of this House, and I have not been in the House sufficiently long to develop the kind of attachment that
918
Members have who have enjoyed the privilege of sitting here for many years. I can readily understand the affection in which noble Lords hold this House. They can recall the memorable debates, the distinguished Members and the wise counsel given from time to time, and I can understand, therefore, some reluctance to change.
I can also understand that in another place there is a good deal of resentment against this House. I read with great interest the Record of the debate held yesterday, and could sense a certain feeling towards this House, where Members do not have to respond so readily to the crack of the Party Whip or face the rigours of re-election, or suffer the exertions of pressure groups from the constituencies. I noticed that someone in the other House said that this White Paper represented a conspiracy between the two Front Benches. It would in tact be a great tragedy if this measure were to be defeated by a coalition of the extreme Conservative elements in this country who hesitate to change, and the extreme Left-Wing elements who resent the very existence of the House of Lords. I hope, therefore, that this House will take a balanced and reasonable view of the White Paper, and at this stage will not pursue some of the minor criticisms which they have but will concentrate on this measure as an important change in constitutional government.
I have said that I have not been in this House sufficiently long to develop the kind of affection and attachment that other Members have, but since I have become a Member I have learned to respect certain practices in the House which require to be and should be preserved. I respect the good manners which are shown in the debates and discussion, and the general relations within the House. I respect its generosity; I respect its fairness and its freedom from acrimony in debating the political issues which come before us. I hope that, whatever changes may be implemented by the Bill which will follow the White Paper, none of these practices and standards will be impaired. I know, of course, that these attitudes are not imposed on the House; they grow out of the traditions, the time honoured practices of this Chamber.
I realise that something would be lost in the House of Lords if we were to be

919
transformed into a replica of the House of Commons, if nominated Peers were tied too firmly to Party loyalties and we were expected to "rubber stamp" all Government legislation. I am a Life Peer and presumably would be one of the new breed who would exercise voting powers in the House. But the fact that Life Peers do not have to face the pressures which are normal in the case of a Member of another place, particularly if he is to secure re-election there, would, I think, guarantee the objectivity and integrity of Life Peers. This would affect their judgment and I think avoid the possibility of this House becoming simply a replica of the House of Commons.
While I have said that it would be unfortunate if certain practices in this House were not maintained, at the same time I feel that we must recognise the need for change. The reputation and respect which this House enjoys would be tarnished if we did not recognise the need for change. The weight of legislation to-day, the involvement of the Government in so many areas of our economic as well as our social and cultural life, requires that we should take a close look at the whole machinery of government.
I have not the experience of many noble Lords who have participated with such distinction in this most important debate, but as a newcomer I must say that I find some of the procedures in our Governmental machinery inefficient, and wasteful of the time and energy of noble Lords who carry out their duties in this House. I am sure the experience of the long Sittings in the detailed examination of the Transport Bill is still very much with us. Noble Lords in all parts of the House undertook the duty of examining this important legislation in every detail, and in some cases submitting quite reasonable Amendments to the Bill. These were taken to another place and looked at, and the Bill was returned to us intact. And noble Lords who had exercised their interest, their time and their energy in this matter simply had to accept the position. I feel that the new proposals contained in the White Paper will give this House more significance and more authority.
920
I was interested in the speech made in another place yesterday by Mr. Maudling, in which he said that the built-in Conservative majority has made it more difficult to oppose measures proposed by a Labour Government, and a more rationally constructed House would not suffer in this way. I believe that to be true; that if this were a much more rationally constructed House we should be able to exert more authority and more influence in the Parliamentary processes.
As someone who has come recently to this House I find that there is a good deal of time wasting, and I am sure that the desire to attract young people to service in the House of Lords would be affected by this situation. If young people are anxious to serve, they are anxious that their services shall be meaningful, that they have a sense of fulfilment and that they are making a contribution. I should imagine that the present machinery in the House and the general machinery of government in Westminster is not the kind of thing that would attract imaginative young people. So the change visualised in this White Paper will not discourage the service of young people in this House. On the contrary, by the fact that it is made less time-consuming and more effective it is more likely to attract young people.
I come to this House from industry, and I still have a substantial interest in earning my living in industry. If there is one thing that politicians have demanded of industry in recent years it is that it should be modern, efficient and competitive. It would be somewhat unfortunate if our law-making institutions were to resist the kind of changes that are visualised in this White Paper, particularly to-day, when the State is so much involved in setting the climate for industrial progress, by its controls, by its incentives, by its own massive investments. It is important that the State itself and the machinery of government should take to heart the lessons that it is fond of giving to industrialists to become more efficient.
My Lords, it has been said that if we adopted these changes, and abolished the hereditary principle, we should in some strange way be weakening the power of the House and giving the Executive excessive control. I cannot follow this argument. I should imagine that

921
if we had nominated Life Peers deeply involved in the day-to-day work of this House that would be a much safer barrier against the encroachments of the Executive than the present Chamber is.
I hope that the Government will not run away from the proposition, which has aroused a good deal of discussion in another place and also in this Chamber, that Peers should be paid. I think it essential that we should be able to nominate Peers who will find it possible to serve. The argument used to be applied in the House of Commons that Members there should not be paid. This restricted the opportunity of recruiting men and women to serve us in the House of Commons. I hope that the same principles will be observed here as are observed there. If we are in fact to nominate Peers and recruit them from all walks of life, so that this House becomes a much more representative body, we should not so construct the rules as to exclude some people from such notable public service.
A great deal has been said in this debate by abolitionists, by people who like the Senate form of government, or regional representation, or by people like my noble friend Lord Brockway who wanted this to become another British Association and a general forum for debate. It seems to me that all noble Lords who pursue their pet hobbyhorse in this way are missing the point. The issue before the House is surely this: that we approve in general the reforms included in the White Paper, and if we do not accept these reforms then there is no alternative before us. We should in fact be inhibiting the whole process of Parliamentary reform of which this is part; and it would be a most serious responsibility on the part of noble Lords if they were to defeat and impede this first step towards the whole reform of the Parliamentary machine at Westminster.
This White Paper has been regarded in some areas as an unsatisfactory compromise and a coalition, but this should not hide the very important changes and reforms that are involved. The break with the hereditary principle, the limit on delaying powers—which I regard as of great importance because, let us face it, my Lords, the powers presently in the hands of the House of Lords could re
922
strict substantially the term of office of any Government—andthe steps to ensure that the Government have adequate representation in this Chamber, show that considerable progress has been made. I hope that these proposals will be approved and that they will bring to this House a new vitality, while at the same time retaining some of the virtues which make the House of Lords so important in constitutional government.
6.31 p.m.
VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE:My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, has covered the wider field of this reform proposal, because it enables me to save the time of the House by going straight to the White Paper itself. In general, I am very much in favour of the proposals in the White Paper, and shall have no hesitation in supporting them. I think the two-tier structure is an attractive one, not simply for its short-term usefulness in making simpler the transition from a hereditary House to a reformed House, but because the two-tier system offers long-term advantages and gives us many options to adopt in the future for reorganisations of our composition. It has that flexibility, and it also has another very great advantage, in that the two tiers roughly correspond with the two main functions which are performed in this House—the legislative function, on the one hand, and the deliberative function, on the other.
The voting and non-voting Peers and their relationship are a rather difficult problem, and I do not feel that the proposals in the White Paper quite fit in with the two functions which they are mainly designed to perform. To take the voting Peers first, in paragraph 17 reference is made to the "nucleus of experienced parliamentarians" on whom the burden of the legislative function must necessarily fall. I think we all know very well how many experienced parliamentarians we have who devote a very large part of their time to this work; and very fortunate we are to have them. We have no statistics to show how many could really be considered to form that category, nor how much of their time they have to give up to this work. But I should be very surprised if the busiest of them had an attendance record of much less than 75

923
per cent., although that is only a guess which may be right or wrong. What strikes me is that there is a tremendously big gap between that figure and the 33⅓per cent. attendances which are to be called for from the voting Peers.
This will not be a very popular suggestion, particularly in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, said, but I think that 33⅓ per cent. is too low an attendance for voting Peers; not too high. I base this only on observation and partly on my own experience. I have been maintaining just about that record during the last Session—possibly a little more—and I find that, while one can hope on that basis to attend Second Readings and debates on Motions for Papers in which one wishes to speak or vote, or to attend because one has a particular interest, it is not possible as a general rule to take a really full part in the Commitee stages of Bills on the Floor of the House. In fact, apart from Second Readings, one's attendance at the legislative parts of our Business is largely fortuitous, because when one attends for a Second Reading debate one also attends whatever happens to come before and after it.
It is true that I am what is perhaps called a regional Peer; in other words, I live far outside daily travelling distance from London. For that reason, as I think noble Lords must easily appreciate, the planning of one's programme of attendance is a much more difficult task than for those who live within daily reach of London. One cannot do what so many other noble Lords do, and come in for an afternoon or for a whole day's debate when there is something interesting on, do one's own job in the morning and fill social engagements in the evening, and have the rest of the week to oneself.
If you come from a distance—and I am speaking not only of Scotland, but of the regions of England just as much —you have to say, "Such-and-such a week will be a House of Lords week, and I shall attend three or four days in that week." I am sure that must be a problem which faces all Peers from the more distant regions, and it must also to some extent affect very busy Peers even if they are rather nearer at hand. Therefore, unless my experience is altogether un-
924
typical, I think it will be found that voting Peers who achieve only33⅓ per cent. attendance will be of remarkably little use in the legislative part of our Business, particularly in the grinding work of going through a Committee stage.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Viscount, because he is on a very important point? I had meant to deal with this in the winding-up speech. The purpose of the 33⅓ per cent. rule is to serve as a dropout point if a Peer fails to turn up at all, having undertaken to do so. It is deliberately set at a low level, but there is no doubt that if the voting House, the working nucleus, is to do the sort of work which we see as necessary, then a very much higher attendance is going to be required—the sort of higher attendance which a lot of Peers give, anyway, particularly on Committee work. This figure was set at a low level because there may be certain Peers, particularly Scottish Peers—and this has nothing to do with remuneration—who will need to vote and will turn up for Scottish Business and for whom this figure will meet the requirement. It is a long and involved point, but the noble Viscount is absolutely right in saying that if Peers turned up for only that amount of time the idea of this House doing more work would be very mistaken.
VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE:That is exactly the point, my Lords, and I am most grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for his intervention. Of course, there is a corollary to this. I presume that in fact an enormous amount of the legislative Business of the House is bound to be done by Peers who live in and near London.
When we turn to non-voting Peers there are again one or two points I think worth considering. Much is made in paragraph 50 of the necessity for representation from the regions, with which I think we all agree. I am not quite sure what is envisaged in the wording of that paragraph. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, has already spoken of the need for attendance of Scottish Peers at Scottish legislation. It is a point with which I do not wish to deal as the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has already dealt with it.
However, there is surely another point which I put with some diffidence, which

925
affects the regions, English as well as Scottish or Welsh, and that is that surely it is of great advantage to us to have the advice of people from the regions, not on particularised local regional issues only but on national issues of greater importance. I hope that the many noble Lords who live in the London area will not be offended if I say to them that we who live in the outback feel that a litle breath of fresh air from the opinions that people acquire living there can often do something to freshen up the rather jaded ideas of those whose view of things is largely through the back window of the commuter in front going in and out of London every day. I may be wrong in that, but I think that is a reason for regional representation which is not always fully understood. For that purpose surely it is not necessary to vote. That seems to me a function which can be very well and adequately performed by a non-voting Peer from the regions, who can come and talk as much as he likes in our debates and bring in his breath of fresh air.
There is only one other point to which I should like briefly to refer. There has been some criticism of the statistical tables, if I may call them that, which have been incorporated in the White Paper of the possible voting composition of the reformed House. I think the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, referred to that. Obviously some such calculation must be made, but I hope I am right in thinking that although we must have that as a fall-back safeguard, one should not talk of it as if all our debates, even those which end in a vote, are necessarily going to be conducted strictly on that statistical basis. Following on what, for instance, the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, said from these Benches yesterday, I hope that there will be sufficient elasticity in the system of Party discipline so that when we are debating subjects which are not of vital importance and various matters on the Committee stages of Bills we shall be able to continue the general practice now and allow a fair amount of latitude. At present the Whips do not try to put across, or perhaps do not succeed in putting across, their views to all the members of their Party in every vote. I make a plea that we shall always have in mind that however professional our voting House becomes, we should preserve as much element of independence
926
to individual Peers as is consistent with good management.
6.44 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I fear I shall not follow the noble Viscount who has just sat down, except in one respect. It is right and pleasing for me to pay tribute to those who have worked so hard and patiently on the Inter-Party Committee which has given Caesarean birth to this White Paper. I hope they—and many of them are my close friends —will consider this gratitude coming from me especially poignant, since I deem about 80 per cent. of their conclusions to be misconceived.
To my surprise, one culpable and besetting truth has been either ignored or disguised by almost every speaker so far in this debate. We are debating the abolition of the House of Lords. Let us not pretend otherwise or assist the Government in their pretence. True enough, we are also debating the creation of a new Second Chamber, but the former proposal must not be, as I see it, concealed by the latter. When the proposals of this White Paper are built into a Bill, it will presumably bear the same sort of euphemistic title as the present document. But this will not be a measure of reform; it will be a Bill to abolish, its effect being camouflaged as the intention is being camouflaged.
The new Chamber, it seems, will be called the House of Lords. The membership may be predominantly the same, at the beginning. But behind these surface similarities the whole character and confidence and tradition of the House will have altered unrecognisably. It is a perfectly fair matter for debate that the House of Lords should be done away with. What seems to me contemptuous and unacceptabe is this attempted political sleight-of-hand, in passing off this epochal altering of the Constitution as if it were no more than a tactical change.
In case it may be thought that these are the sour words of a man who sees his inherited sinecure being taken away from him, perhaps I can attempt to correct that impression. Eleven years ago I came to this House reluctantly, not to say resentfully. I had been adopted

927
as a prospective candidate, with a by-election imminent, in a constituency which has ever since successfully returned a Conservative Member of Parliament. Unless I had shown myself totally undeserving to the electorate of that division, I should to-day be a Member of another place for a Yorkshire constituency. Of course, I do not doubt they are better off with the Member they have. I have gone into this, because I thought one of the best things a man could do with his life was to represent some of his neighbours in the House of Commons, and I had been happy enough to be chosen for a constituency which I still think of as ideal. In the event, my father died many years earlier than anyone had expected, and so it might be said that my presence here is not so much an "accident of birth", a phrase so often employed, as an "accident of death".
My reason for introducing this admittedly private and individual factor, is to relate that when my father died I considered that my political life was over before it had begun. It was only because some close friends in the House of Commons urged me to take my seat here and, having done so, to take an active part, that I came to respect and indeed to love this House, its work and its endeavours. I suppose I have worked here as hard and enjoyably as I could ever have worked in the House of Commons.
In the years I have been here, unlike the noble Earl, Lord Longford, I have never heard one of my close friends or colleagues in the House suggest that the House was perfect. Not one of them has been afraid of change. Indeed, all of them have sought and supported change. So have I; so do I. In my own relatively short experience, we have carried out important and beneficial reforms to our composition, notably the advent of Life Peers. What is being forced upon us now is not reform; it is abolition and substitution. I am against this upon two principal grounds. It is far too drastic to be carried out without reference to the country by a Government which, we know, do not have the support of the country. I am not referring narrowly to support of their action towards the House of Lords, but to support of any kind. If the Government
928
submitted themselves to-day to the judgment of the people, they would be cast out. They are not the sort of Government which, at this stage, at this nadir of national esteem, are qualified to alter the Constitution so violently, cunningly though that violence may be screened.
What is the urgent requirement for such a drastic change? This is no rhetorical question, and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, will explain when he winds up. It can hardly be that he and his colleagues feel the pressure of any public indignation or anxiety concerning either the powers or the Constitution of the House of Lords. If they do, they might read a book, lately published, which has already been referred to in this debate, called Angels in Marble by Mr. Robert Mackenzie and Alan Silver, two Professors of Sociology, neither of them, so far as I know, having any Tory affiliations. I will quote only one passage from their findings, in which they state:
"Conservatives are more likely than Labour voters to approve of the House of Lords as at present organised, yet only one-third of the entire working class sample, and only a slightly higher proportion of Labour voters, favoured abolishing the House of Lords or altering it in any way."
The book presents the results of four surveys of working-class opinions in Britain.
Noble Lords opposite may riposte by saying, or more likely by quietly thinking, that working class opinion is "old hat" to the New Socialism. It is the dons and the other intellectuals they look to now. This is a far more convincing source. There is a view, or a vogue, which carries some influence to-day, that because something has lasted a long time, centuries it may be, with the approval and respect of the nation, it must be wrong. This is the sort of Pavlovian reaction we expect from the far Left, but it is strange to find a part of the Conservative Party falling into step with this illusion.
There is another companion fallacy; that of the backwoodsmen thronging in from the shires to occupy strategic Benches on this side of the House. Can it really be that this nightmare disturbs the placid slumbers of the noble Lord, the Leader of the House? I can think of many things which ought to disturb those slumbers, but not that. My noble friend

929
Lord Jellicoe described this phenomenon wittily, yesterday, as "St. Aldwyn's overkill". Whoever believes in "St. Aldwyn's over-kill", it is not St. Oswald, nor, I hazard, is it Lord Shackleton. That bogey cannot excuse the measures before us.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, opening to-day's debate, gave us a reason for these changes by quoting paragraph 4 of the White Paper, and in particular, I take it, sub-paragraph (c) permitting the more efficient working of Parliament, and (b) to increase the effectiveness of the House of Lords. But nothing written into the White Paper increases the effectiveness; there is a decrease in powers. The reference to an increase in influence is parenthetical and theoretical. It is a carrot— a floating carrot— which does not convince me. He avouched to-day that the proposals would produce a House which can perform its present role, and more. But would they? I say that they would not, because this will become a puppet House, and we have never before performed as puppets.
If I may address myself for a moment to those who believe, when invited to, that, "This is the best that we can get", I would say that this is a thoroughly bad reason for voting against your own judgment. This is "over-the-brinkmanship", because we shall be surrendering something which belongs, not to us, but to our country, and which would never be recovered. To my mind, this is about the worst that we could get. We are being bluffed by a discredited Government into something which is utterly wrong.
Who is to say what will be obtainable to-morrow or in two years' time, when the present Government have been electorally as well as morally discarded? It must be something better than this, for this is a bad substitute for the present House, something for which there is no mandate. The last Labour Manifesto contained a passage on "Legislation to safeguard measures approved by the House of Commons from frustration or delay by the House of Lords". What frustration and what delay have they suffered? I can fairly accept it in the case of the Stansted Airport Order, where they must have been very grateful for the delay. It might be more convincingly and woundingly argued that we had been too timid in the use of the powers we possess to protect the country from legis
930
lation which will damage its interests and prospects. The outside criticism which I have heard most often is that we have been too easily daunted by threats and strictures. We have been almost as demure in our relations with another place as that sensitive damsel, Alice:
"Oh, don't you remember Sweet Alice, Ben Bolt?
Sweet Alice, whose hair was so brown,
Who wept with delight if you gave her a smile,
And trembled with fear at your frown?"
I confess that inwardly I find it rather hard to identify myself with this bashful disposition, but in the measures being proposed in this White Paper it would become the statutory attitude of this House.
Many noble Lords have spoken about the new two-tier system as introducing the concept of first-class and second-class Peers. But, definitively, of course, it could no longer be called the House of Peers, since the meaning of Peer is "an equal in standing or rank". It is deceptive to suggest that there will be nothing invidious in being allowed to speak but not to vote. If a man is worth listening to, why should he not have the right to vote? The idea seems to be rooted in the belief that he will not mind being rendered impotent so long as he is not rendered speechless as well. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, referred lo the upper tier as a "hard core of legislators". I wonder how he would wish to identify the non-voting Members. Would "pulp" appeal to him as the appropriate term?
That is not the gravest humiliation involved. What is proposed, instead of a control of the hereditary principle, is a House of Nominees. The first most massive single batch of all, is to be nominated by Mr. Harold Wilson. Thereafter, as Governments change, after General Elections, the opposing sides will be topped up by "trusties" from elsewhere, pledged to give the new Government a safe majority. Yet, in paragraph 25, under the heading of "Principles of Reform", we are told that the first of these principles is:
"that if a reformed House is to have the influence which a Second Chamber requires, it must possess a degree of genuine independence."
My Lords, what cant—what entertaining cant! There is no intention to grant independence. It is a plan to impose

931
conformity, so dear to the heart of the autocrat.
I have called it politely a House of Nominees. Yesterday in another place a Labour Member, a former Minister, said that it would be a House not of Lords but of Lackeys. I believe that this is the intention, thinly disguised, in this White Paper. The White Paper is not a result of political reasoning. It is political expostulation and experiment. Some noble Lords have said, "We must make a start somewhere." This seems to me both percipient and ominous, because this is only a start, drastic as it is. When this fails, as fail it will, other expostulation and experiments will occur as foreshadowed in Appendix II, which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor specifically exhorted us to read.
I oppose this, as I said, on two principal grounds. First, because nothing so drastic is demanded or justified, and because nothing relating to powers or composition was included in the Labour Manifesto of 1966; secondly, because what is put forward is bad in every sense for the country we serve. What is being urged upon us is a bad substitute for what we have and, more important, for what we are able to give. This has been, and is to-day, a good workshop, no doubt with room for improvement. Set before us now is a demolition order, and a plan to put hastily and experimentally in its place something totally unsatisfactory.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in his opening sentences yesterday, declared that he rejected abolition, and then proceeded to advocate it under another name. Should we show ourselves complaisant in our own destruction, we shall earn that destruction. We shall be remembered as the lemming legislators of the late twentieth century. If there is a Division to-morrow, as I trust there will be, it will give us an opportunity to vote against that abolition. If it is the last Lobby I ever march through in this House, I shall be there.
7.0 p.m.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, I am sure the whole House has immensely enjoyed, as I have, the speech of the noble Lord opposite. Equally, I am sure that if they could speak the ossified
932
gentlemen standing in niches around this Chamber would give him hearty approval, because from time to time, if they are conscious at all, they must be very concerned at the steady transformation of a House which at one time they looked upon as one of the great authorities of this country. The noble Lord who spoke last must realise—he probably does—that the beginning of what he assumes to be a tragedy was in the early part of this century, when there came the limitation on the power of this House to obstruct legislation from the other House. This, no doubt, was received at the time as a piece of gross impertinence on the part of the democratically-elected other House; but that was the beginning. Since that time, many other incidents have taken place which I am sure have deeply stirred the noble Lord, and perhaps others as well.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, if the noble Lord will be good enough to allow me to say so, I think he could not have understood me, no doubt because I explained myself badly. I do not oppose reform: I just oppose bad reform. And I am not "hooked" on heredity.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, I appreciate that, but I am sure the noble Lord will agree with me that from his standpoint the proposals in the White Paper are a bad change.
LORD ST. OSWALD: That is right.
LORD SORENSEN: That is why I assumed that the noble and (as I called them) ossified gentlemen would feel the same. There are certain affinities between us all, both those contemporary and those of the past. May I also remind the noble Lord that the introduction of Life Peerages was another erosion of the ancient authority of this House? It was the establishment of a two-tier system. The hereditaries, who still predominate—
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, the noble Lord must recognise that in my speech I described the introduction of Life Peerages as beneficial.
LORD SORENSEN: I am sure the whole of the noble Lord's speech was beneficial. It benefited me enormously,

933
because I greatly enjoyed it; and I shall read it with very great care to-morrow morning in Hansard as being the sincere and fluent expression of one point of view in this House. All I am endeavouring to suggest now to the noble Lord and others is that the reforms which are proposed in the White Paper are simply a continuation of what has begun already. It began, indeed, at the beginning of the century. The noble Lord spoke about the White Paper anticipating, or indeed proposing, the abolition of this House, but I would not go so far as that. I would rather suggest that it is one more instalment in the steady transformation of this House, so as to bring it more in accordance with modern thought and modern thinking.
During the many years that I was in the other House, one of the chores that I and others had to do from time to time was to take parties round the Houses of Parliament and describe their wonders—including, of course, the wonder of this particular establishment. I remember that on one occasion an American gentleman said to me, rather caustically, "How can you call your country democratic when you have, on the one hand, a Royal Family and, on the other hand, a House of Lords?". I explained to him, perhaps rather facetiously, that we kept the House of Lords going for the sake of American tourists, because they are fascinated by our pageantry and our history. Some of our venerable pageantry is far superior and much more impressive than the rather brash and flamboyant exhibitionism that I and others have seen in America.
I say that because all of us appreciate the historical background of this House. Those of us who have read, even in an amateur way, the development of the thought of mankind and its various institutions must have a certain respect for this place. I will not go so far as my noble friend Lord Longford, and admit that I was ecstatic when I came here. On the contrary, I was interested, I was amused; and indeed I enjoy from time to time the atmosphere of courteous urbanity, in striking contrast to what is euphemistically called "the cut-and-thrust of debate", in which a certain speaker urged us to engage, in the other House—too reminiscent to me, I am
934
afraid, of a cavalry charge at Balaclava, with sundry bayonets and sabres flashing in the air. I like this House because we can talk things over in a civilised way. We do not engage so much in the cut-and-thrust of debate unless, of course, we cover the cut and the thrust when they are made—and they are made from time to time.
I am equally glad, as are others on this side of the House who have been in the other place, that we have an opportunity to speak whenever we wish, which explains the long list of 120 Peers who desire to participate in this debate, even though it may be at about two or three o'clock in the morning. I would say that one of the contributions we might make to a reform of this House is to devise some means by which we can avoid being drowned in untrammelled verbosity: to devise, for instance, a means by which we allocate to every Member three solid hours of debating opportunity, shall we say, during the year. He can split it up in any way he pleases—half-an-hour, ten minutes or whatever the case may be. If that were done it would have a certain advantage, because I am quite certain that some, like myself no doubt, get so fascinated by our freedom to speak, as compared with the other House, that we overlook the fact that perhaps some things can go too far. I do not propose to go too far to-night because I want to get home, as others do, as early as I possibly can for a meal and a little rest.
Certainly I welcome this White Paper, as I hope most Members here do, not because it is the end of the process which has been taking place for over fifty years, but as one instalment. I visualise—indeed, I am certain it is inevitable—further great changes taking place; but I agree that this is a compromise, and because it is a compromise at this juncture we shall avoid diverting the attention of the public mind away from much more serious issues. I would say, Certainly let us take this. It is either this or nothing for some years to come." I say that because I do not want to see the abolition of the Second Chamber. Far from it! I have always believed in a bicameral Constitution. I think a House like ours has a great function to fulfil, when we can have those with more leisure and a background of life experience to give the best of their knowledge

935
and experience to us, when we can look through the legislation of the so-called Lower House and advise that, here and there, improvement or rectification may be possible. All this is extremely valuable, and I want it to continue. But in these days, can anyone justify the continuation of the hereditary principle as the dominating principle in this establishment? If we want to be peaceful, therefore, it is better to take this compromise, reached by inter-Party discussion, as a very wise way by which we can move onwards into the 21st century.
May I say, in regard again to another interesting observation by the noble Lord opposite, that quite possibly a large number appear not to be interested in this House and do not want it changed because they are no longer troubled, as they once were, by the obstructive possibilities of this House. They are now just bored. Among those I have talked to I have found again and again that they are not concerned with this House so long as it cannot do the damage which, as they thought, it could do some years ago. Therefore, I want to see this matter settled for the time being so that we can get on to more important matters.
Now very briefly, succinctly and tersely, may I make one or two suggestions regarding the White Paper as it is? I have spoken of the necessity of a Second Chamber on a non-hereditary basis. In regard to patronage, I see no objection to patronage, because it is inevitable and inescapable. Democracy, in which I thoroughly believe, can, like everything else, go too far. It can run riot. I remember being in California some years ago when they were engaged in an election not only for their President but for 40 other necessities. They had to vote on whether they wanted a post office, a judge and a local convenience. There were 40 different gaps in this long screed of paper on which they had to put their mark. Even then they had to leave much to be decided by individuals. I hope we shall never get to that stage. And let us realise that democracy involves the depositing of responsibility on individuals. We must scrutinise them; and we must be vigilant lest they are corrupt or exploit their stewardship. But if democracy cannot trust individuals to perform
936
tasks for their country, then indeed it is hardly worth preserving.
After all, patronage is exercised when the Prime Minister chooses certain Members of both Houses for his Cabinet. There is no group of people who, by democratic discussion and debate, ultimately decide who shall head this or that Department of State. It would be as absurd as to have a committee on a ship arguing with the captain as to how he should navigate. If that were practised, we should all be on the rocks in no time at all. So certainly, let us leave patronage; let it be wise; let it be all-Party and let the patron himself be open to criticism, but do not let us assume that we can run our country and appoint people to responsible positions, all the while suspecting them of being rogues. Rather, let us assume the reverse; that they want to do the best they can and therefore appoint the best people they can to this House when the opportunity occurs.
The second thing I should like to say is in regard to our noble friends who are here to-day represented by one right reverend Prelate but who have been here in greater numbers during the day. I cannot see in these days why the Prelates themselves should be in this House at all as Prelates. I am sure they will not be disturbed at this. I know the long history of the Church of England; I know how there came to be 26 Bishops sent here; I know the tension that existed between at one time the Church Catholic on the one hand and the State on the other. I know that at one time the Church had an infinitely greater authority than it has now. One remnant of that is the fact that our monarchs are always crowned at Westminster Abbey and also that one of the Bishops, rightly, comes here every day and for our benefit says Prayers. I know it partly because, though it may seem strange, at one time I was a priest of a church more ancient than the Church of England although perhaps not as ancient as the Church of Rome. This led me to study a little of the history of ecclesiasticism, the relations between Church and State. But all this has gone. It is effete.
I am glad, of course, that the right reverend Prelates are here. Indeed, when I listen to them I am always impressed by their wisdom and by their spiritual

937
insight—which is a contrast to the behaviour of some of their predecessors of, say, a hundred years ago. They are certainly erasing many of the blots in their copybook. So far as our present Prelates are concerned, I not only have no criticism of them but I greatly admire their forward-looking views. But that does not justify their being here as Prelates. If it did, why not representatives of the Free Churches, why not of the Jews and, for that matter, of the Sikhs—we have 100,000 of them here now—and why not the Muslims, the Hindus, or, indeed, the Humanists? All these are worthy men; the best of them could be here. I do not myself favour the appointment of ecclesiastical representatives. That being so, the best thing is that for the time being a certain number should be here for old times' sake. But in the end they can be appointed on their own merits, whether they be members of the Church of England, the Church of Rome, the Free Churches, the Jewish faith or any other faith. I say again that I want to assure the right reverend Prelates who are here that I have the greatest appreciation of the history of their Church and of the witness that the right reverend Prelates are making to-day.
The second point is in regard to the vexed question of the payment of Peers. I agree that Peers who are here—unlike some in the past who had no need to worry about pecuniary assistance—need assistance from time to time. But if the suggestion has been made that there should be as much as two-thirds of the amount given to the other House, I beg Members to think again. Having had experience of the other House I say that the work of the average Member of Parliament and that of the average Peer cannot be compared. The amount of correspondence with which Members of the Commons have to deal, the avalanche of pitiful cases brought to them—those two functions alone make them quite different from Members of this House, none of whom in his capacity as a Peer has to deal with constituency problems and a great volume of correspondence. Because of that, I would suggest that if payment is to be made it should be substantially less than that paid to the hardworking Members of the other place.
My Lords, I am conscious of the fact that there is much else in my notes on
938
which I should have liked to speak, but it would be unfair for me to go on. I have spoken too long already—I have already suggested that we suffer from excessive verbosity. I trust that we shall take the opportunity as one where peaceably, sanely, with civilised agreement among ourselves, we can press on from the past into the future. We have gone a long way already and I want to see us going much further. If in this House we can unanimously agree, with one or two exceptions as evidenced tonight, then I am sure it will be a great contribution to the future sane discussions of the great problems of our country.
7.16 p.m.
LORD RATHCAVAN: My Lords, in the Preamble to the Parliament Act of 1911 it was stated:
"… whereas it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords … a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis …"
That was 57 years ago. Since then quite a lot has been done towards reform, but the hereditary principle has not really been dealt with until the present proposals. As regards what has happened, the powers of this Chamber have been further reduced, Life Peers have been created, women have been admitted, permission to renounce Peerages has been given and we have initiated a system for granting leave of absence to Peers. The great majority of this House still consists of the hereditary Peers and the present scheme deals with this aspect of the matter. In these modern days I do not think that you can justify giving anybody the right to be a member of the, Legislature simply because he is the son of his father. The scheme we are discussing to-day provides for the gradual phasing out of the hereditary Peers, which will be accomplished over, I suppose, the next one of two generations. And it does this with the least possible disturbance to the present construction of this House.
The two-tier system is an ingenious one. In my view it has certain advantages. First of all, it has been agreed upon by a Committee consisting of members of the main political Parties. Secondly, it provides an easy way out for the hereditary Peers. Thirdly, it leaves this House without much visible change for probably quite a long time. But how far the new voting House will conform to

939
the Preamble of the Parliament Act 1911 as being constituted on a popular basis, I am not quite sure. Possibly not; or not very much, since all its Members will have been nominated. Surely "a popular basis", which was in the Preamble of the 1911 Act, presupposes some kind of election. That was clearly contemplated in 1911. But now election seems to be ruled out. I do not know why, because in great democracies such as the United States of America and Australia they have a system of election of their Second Chambers. It seems to me that our House of Commons is much more tenacious of its powers than is the case in many other democracies.
If we rule out election, I do not see what alternative there is except some form of nomination. Personally I do not very much like the idea that this should be solely the prerogative of the Prime Minister of the day. Could it not be done by some committee or panel of people? The voting House would consist, apart from a number of Peers selected from the hereditary Peers, of Life Peers and Peers of first creation. The advantage of this is that all nominated Peers now sitting in this House have a record of some kind of past distinguished political service. The disadvantage is that the very fact that they are people of long public service must mean that they cannot be young men or women.
Therefore I think it is very necessary that there should be a number of young Peers among those who would be in the new voting House. I was surprised to hear that there are very few young Peers among the hereditary Peers who would be eligible for the voting House. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said there were only one or two under 30 and a few under 40. I must say that I never realised that, and if that is the case, then surely among the nominated Peers there must be nominated a number of younger men, who, of course, will not have the background of public service which most Life Peers have had hitherto. But I feel strongly—and I know that this is the almost unanimous view of your Lordships' House—that the voting House of the future should contain quite a large number of younger Peers.
940
It has been emphasised in the White Paper that it is desirable to have some Peers sitting in the voting House with special knowledge of the different parts of the United Kingdom. So far as Northern Ireland is concerned, I would suggest that some of these might be found from among the Irish Peers with Ulster connections who no longer are represented here as they used to be.
Although this is not strictly part of the reform of the House of Lords, I was delighted to see that at long last all Peers are to be given the vote at Parliamentary elections. This disqualification was based on a supposed archaic law going back to feudal times. The extraordinary thing to me is that it should have lasted so long with hardly any protest. It is high time that Peers no longer are classed with lunatics and aliens. I do not suppose that the present scheme will be a final settlement. As it goes on, there are sure to be alterations and amendments. But, in all the circumstances, it is in my opinion well worth a trial and I shall certainly vote in favour of the Motion moved by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
7.26 p.m.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I think it will be accepted as one of the facts of life that all social and political institutions can be divided into three classes. There are those which it would be essential to invent, if they did not exist already. There are those which exist already but have no particular function and which nobody in their senses would invent, but which we do not feel able to destroy. The third class are those which are over-ripe and are ready to be cast away.
One of the remarkable things about Second Chamber Government is that we never now hear any serious argument as to whether a Second Chamber is necessary. We all take the view that Second Chambers, whatever their curious shortcomings, belong to the second class. They are there because they are there, and because they are there we must keep them there, though they may have to be modified. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said that all experience in countries abroad, except for a few small countries like New Zealand, established the proposition (I am not quoting his exact words) that a Second

941
Chamber is essential. I would venture, with great respect, to say that experience is not really a good test, because those countries which have a bicameral Legislature have riot experimented with the unicameral system and therefore cannot say whether it would be better or worse.
The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said that we could not have single Chamber Government because the electorate did not want it. That again seems to me to be a sweeping statement and not in the nature of a serious argument. I should very much like to hear a serious argument why a Second Chamber is necessary. It seems to me that we are rapidly getting into the position that we take it as an axiom and go around scratching our heads and asking who on earth we are going to put in it. So it is suggested to put in representatives of the regions or of professional bodies or of the C.B.I. and the T.U.C. We must have someone somehow to fill it. That seems to be the basis of the position we have got to, and I should like to hear some serious argument on it.
I have never quite understood the idea that if we take one set of people and sit them in one room on green benches and another set of people and sit them in another room on red benches, the collective wisdom of the two bodies taken together is thereby increased. If we are determined to have a Second Chamber, I suggest that there is a very simple way of doing it—that is, the way they do it in Norway, where they elect Parliament as a whole and Parliament thereafter divides itself into two Chambers, so that they get this mystique of being in separate rooms although in fact they have been elected as a unitary body.
I recognise that if we were to abolish this House it would be necessary to make some pretty considerable changes in the procedure of another place. They might have to engage in more Committee work. The number of Members might have to be increased until they were as numerous as those of the two Houses put together, at least as they would be under the White Paper scheme. They might have to read Bills four times instead of three. But I should have thought that they could make the changes which would make it possible for them to discharge the extra burden of work.
942
But if this House is to continue in any shape or form I should like to feel that it will have some really sensible and intelligible function. I have some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, who indicated that we were in effect abolishing it. At the same time, he said that we were going to be reduced to puppets; and I think he said, "Puppets we never have been". It seems to me that we are in our legislative functions very nearly puppets, or, as I would say, we are constantly performing a ritual dance.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that the great majority of the Amendments to Bills passed in your Lordships' House are welcomed in the other place as being obvious improvements. But, of course, the reason for that is that the great majority of Amendments moved in this House are withdrawn because they are unacceptable to the Government, and only a small number of Amendments are carried in this House against the wishes of the Government. When that happens, we then perform our ritual dance. The amended Bill is sent back to the Commons, and the Commons put it back exactly as it was; they return it to us, and we graciously give in. This occupies a large part of our time. It seems to me that all this is in the nature of a ritual dance, and I find it a very curious way to spend one's life—moving Amendments which you know are unacceptable to the other place, and which you know the other place will turn down, and knowing also that when they turn them down you will accept their decision.
Having said that, my Lords, I shall feel reluctantly obliged to support the White Paper. I realise that mine is a voice crying in—well, I cannot exactly call your Lordships' House a wilderness, but, at any rate, it is a voice which certainly has some echoes in another place. I shall reluctantly support the White Paper, because it seems to me the only way in which we can move in a direction which will make this House slightly less absurd than it is now, although it will make it absurd in a rather different way.
It seems to me to be one of the facets of the British way of life that, before any rational step is taken, it must be preceded by an irrational compromise, and

943
a suitable interval has to be allowed between these two phases. One conspicuous example of that, which some of your Lordships will remember, was that when women were first enfranchised they were enfranchised at the age of 30, while men had the vote at the age of 21. I regard the White Paper as a compromise with about that degree of rationality. I do not see any great future for it, although I admire the ingenuity of those who have devised it. I think it is an astonishing performance. It is a step which will last for a few years, and an irrational compromise at the moment which may, with luck, be converted into a rational solution later on.
7.33 p.m.
LORD STRANGE: My Lords, I was very interested in what the noble Baroness had to say. I remembered, as she was talking, that I noticed in the papers that there was an election in America the other day. I was glad to see that the gentleman got in, because he had stood twice, and anybody who stands twice to become a probable human target deserves to get in. I did notice—and I counted the votes—that the majority of the people had voted against him. That is the reason why I fancy a Second Chamber, which I think is essential to discuss the laws, can never be made by election: because so many people, the people who lose, do not vote for it, and therefore do not want the people who are in it. So it has to be made in some other way.
My Lords, I am amazed by the White Paper. I read it through and I looked at the date on it to see what year it was. I cannot understand it at all. It is about heredity, but there is no mention about genetics, from beginning to end. It is perfectly fantastic. You would think that Gregor Johann Mendel, the Liberal Research stations of my youth that I used humbly to support, which have now grown into great palaces of genetic research covering the whole of the world, and all the discoveries of doctors recently about these hereditary deficiency inheritances, might never have been done at all. I might just as well be back at my old school in 1908 and 1909, when we were still arguing about design or natural selection. Actually, Gregor Johann Mendel did not swim into my
944
ken until I was about 20. Then I read a book about Mendelism, which was published I think in 1911, and once I had read that I went straight away—I was a keen fancier of rabbits, pigeons and so on—and started to experiment on them. And I got fantastic results, as I thought in those days. I have believed in the genetic principle ever since. It is part of one's life; it is one's life.
I, in those early days, naturally thought of Mendel's theory (which was Mendelism in those days) as being applied solely to plants and animals. I thought that human beings were a bit different. It seems funny to say that now, but it is true. I thought this until one day I rang up my current girl friend on the telephone and talked to her, telling her how charming she was. I mentioned all sorts of private things to her, and I suddenly realised that I was talking to her mother. When I met her grandmother I found that she had the same enchanting voice. About thirty years after that I was taking a party to a dance, and having danced with the different girls in the party I went to the bar and I heard a voice behind me. I turned round and went up to the young girl and said: "How is your mother?" And I was right. The voice had gone on to the other generation. Once you have done that, you have at once spotted these characters, which I would describe as rather like a broken groove in a record, or now I would describe them as like a tape loop. They just play over the same thing. This morning in my bathroom in the club I found a scallop shell ashtray. Well, that design has been played over that tape loop through geological times. These things are permanent; they cannot be destroyed; they can only be marred. They are always there.
After a rather hectic form of life, I settled down to farm my estate, and naturally genetics came in a great deal. In farming it is fairly simple stuff it is not like recognising complicated things, because you have your milk records, you have to weigh your pigs, and so on. It is fairly difficult to spot what you want, but having an eye for genetics I often spot it, and other things in animals that people did not suspect. For instance, I have four herds of cows, about 52 cows in each herd, and sometimes they were put

945
together and I noticed the leadership quality coming out. Out of a herd of about 50 cows there would be four with leadership qualities, and these four would fight it out among themselves in a quite friendly way, with the other cows watching them. One of them won, she became the leader of the herd, and they all followed her.
Now that instinct is no earthly use to you if you are breeding cows, but if you are breeding racehorses it is what you want. In my youth there was a horse—it was about the first bet that I ever had —either in 1911 or 1912, called The Peacock. The Peacock was a foal brought up in a deer park in Ireland, divided from the deer by a fence, and it used to race the deer up the other side of the fence. It had this leadership quality, and on the racecourse it was never beaten as a two-year old. In one race it was left at the post, but it caught all the other horses and won the race. Unfortunately, it had a genetic fault—I think it was something to do with its bone structure—and it broke down before it became a three-year old. Of its progeny, I remembers (it is rather a long time ago) one called Satrap. There was another grey horse, which was a good horse, and this horse also had this leadership thing. It won every race it went into, but I think it broke down in the last race of its two-year old career when this genetic fault in the bones came up.
I am fortunate, in a way, in having a cricket team of grandchildren whom I can look at and in whom I can see all these genetic characteristics coming out. It is quite fascinating. It is rather like looking into a magic pool, in a sort of misty country. You suddenly see a gesture coming up in the pool that you can trace back to your grandfather, or you can see a smile, or all sorts of peculiarities. What about the bad characteristics? I have two—well, my wife has one, and I have one: mine is a sort of bodily obstruction which forms croup—and it is a nasty thing to have; you choke a lot—and my wife has hay fever running in her family which has passed through the children to two grandchildren. They having got those which they were going to get anyway; you may as well know what they are going to get—you then look for these more or less fantasies, like the leadership quality. You
946
see them coming up like loops of tape. They just play a sort of design and then fade away again. It is fascinating. You are hoping to get some good ones.
I do not want to speak for too long. I think that everybody says that and then speaks for hours. I get so interested in what I am talking about. I will tell your Lordships about one character, to try to show you what these characters are like. My wife has it: the character for counting. If we have been driving about in a car—she has been driving or I have been driving—at home, with a lot of traffic in the roads, we shall have been talking about this and that; and when we have come to the end of our journey I have said to her, "How many cars did we pass?". She will say, "268 cars, 114 lorries, 22 double-decker buses in a station"—and so on and so forth— "2 articulated lorries, 8 motor bicycles and 2 pushbikes"—the lot. When we got to the Isle of Man I wondered whether this counting thing would come out again. There are pretty well no cars there. You drive along lovely roads. I noticed that when she was in the mountainous districts she was always looking at the banks. I soon found out that she was looking for blaeberries. In the blaeberry season she goes out in the car and picks blaeberries, and makes jam out of them, which is very good. One day I said to her, "How many blaeberries did you pick to-clay?" She said, "1,068".
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would excuse my interrupting for one moment?
LORD STRANGE LORD STRANGE: Of course.
LORD BESWICK: I am sure that the whole House is on absolute tenterhooks, wanting to know how this story works out. But staff do have to be kept here until one or two o'clock in the morning, and I wonder if we might have some regard to the length of time the debate is going to take.
LORD STRANGE: I apologise, my Lords. I got carried away with myself. I will not say another word. Well, I shall have to finish somewhere. I cannot leave my speech in the air. I am very sorry; I got carried away. These genetic things are of course very important, and they are all about this House; and it should be, in my opinion, genetically

947
reformed. The way it should be genetically reformed is, first of all, that all Peers of first creation should be made hereditary. They should look among their children, like the Aga Khan did with his child. He missed out his son in favour of his grandson, because he knew. He was a good judge of racehorses, and he knew he had the right connections. They should choose a child who they think represents the characters for which they were created, remembering that we are, all of us, almost entirely automatic; we depend entirely on these characters and can do nothing without them. When that has been done, this choice should appear in your Lordships' House and have an approved period for which he sits here, after which it should be privately voted on as to whether the House wants him or not. That would be the reform. My Lords, I read this Paper, and it should be about genetics. It seems to me to be the play of Hamlet without Hamlet.
7.43 p.m.
LORD REAY: My Lords, I will not attempt to follow the noble Lord who preceded me, much though I enjoyed his highly personal speech, as I always do. I should like to start by congratulating the two maiden speakers whom we have heard this afternoon on their excellent speeches. To Lord Burnham we are indebted for the magnificent suggestion that the Government should be kept in a permanent minority in the House of Lords. The noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, I thought, spoke with great wit and panache, and with feeling, on the heartbreaking hazards of being a young hereditary Peer. Five pounds a day or not, a voting ticket in his pocket or not, I very much hope that we shall hear more from him.
Incidentally, on the subject of payment, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Butler, was surely right when he said that the Government should not let this be the breaking point. If this scheme is to go into effect with the question of payment unsettled, though possibly left open, I am sure that if in the future this House proves to be, as is hoped, a great help to another place and to the Back-Benchers in another place, then the Members of this House will not be allowed for long to go without remuneration.
948
This debate has been so varied, with such contradictory suggestions for the modification of the scheme in the White Paper, or for alternatives to it, that it becomes ever more surprising that the three Parties were ever able to agree to the proposals incorporated in the White Paper. Consequently, with the noble Earl, Lord Longford, I agree that this opportunity to have an agreed reform of this House is possibly unique in our time.
Although I can understand the boredom that the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, expressed with the style of the White Paper, I thought in fact that it was extremely honourable. Indeed, I thought it was one of the most honourable White Papers I had ever read. It avoided the political temptation which it certainly had in the circumstances in which it arose, to present the subject in tone and in terms of political quarrel. But, more than that, I thought it was a remarkable moral achievement for a Government to have produced a document that founded the strength of an institution on an independence from itself. I did not detect, as some other Peers have, a disingenuousness in this, and that this was a veil to some attempt to take over the House of Lords. Very far from it. I thought that in paragraph after paragraph, in proposal after proposal, the determination to make the House of Lords independent from Government control was apparent.
Clearly the Government wish to be protected against charges of excessively increasing patronage. Equally clearly, they have not succeeded in doing so, and I think this is rather surprising. Patronage is objectionable in a political context because it buys votes. That basically is the objection, and that alone. If the House of Lords is roughly to repeat the balance of Parties as exists in the House of Commons—and this is what everybody agrees it should do—then there must be, as indeed there are now, appointments which have the objectionable characteristics of patronage; that is to say, appointments of people whose political affiliations are known, who are advanced to this House because of those affiliations, and who broadly speaking are going to be relied on by their patrons to vote for them. There is no secret about it at all. We are entirely used to this. More or

949
less anybody would agree that this is necessary for a Chamber which is to have a political function.
The Government propose in this White Paper to run the risk of making these Peers non-removable. Again, we are used to this. The Government therefore have no sanction against Members of this House, nor will they have, if they fail to produce their votes for the Government, or indeed for any Party that appointed them. This is of course entirely unlike the House of Commons, where Members run serious risk to their careers if over any period of time, at least, they defy the vote of their Party. It is also worth noting that it is exactly this principle of non-removability that is traditionally held to be sufficient to guarantee the independence of the Judiciary, at all times and in all countries; and what is good enough for a judge, I should have thought, should certainly be good enough for a Peer.
But the Government have taken other precautions. It is not simply that it is not only the Prime Minister who is responsible for appointments. Members in all three Parties are also responsible. But, beyond that, although the figure for the number of Peers to be created might at the start of Parliament exceed what has been the average in the past (the number of 55 Peers created at the start of the 1964 Parliament shows how high the figure has been in the past) in the following years of the Parliament surely the number is bound to he very much lower indeed, because after an Election, when the Prime Minister has brought this House up to the numbers that reflect the balance of the Parties, he just has no leeway and will not be able—as our present Prime Minister has done, for example, in the last three years—to create some additional 90 Peers. Under the proposed scheme a Prime Minister will not be able to do this, and I should have thought in this very important respect his powers of patronage will be considerably reduced.
Finally, the White Paper, in its anxiety to avoid this charge, made its calculations so fine that it has run into the opposite charge of leaving in the air control to an idiosyncratic bunch of Cross-Benchers, who, from some speeches yesterday, one might even have thought were generally considered to be un-
950
balanced. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Annan, had the answer to this particular question when he said that Cross-Benchers in fact take a good deal of persuading not to vote with the Government of the day. That is to say, they always can be persuaded, if it is correct for them to be persuaded; but, basically speaking, they would always tend to vote with the Government of the day. However, that is not entirely the point. The point is that, despite all these precautions taken by the White Paper, still the cry of "patronage" is raised, and I can only suspect that the people who continue to insist on raising it are the victims of dogma and simply have not looked to see how this principle applies.
The Conservatives have two major objections, with the first of which I have a certain sympathy. The noble Lord, Lord Denham, yesterday gave what I thought was the best defence I have ever heard of the hereditary principle, and it takes some courage to do that these days. When I listened to him, I at last began to understand what might be the value to this House of the younger hereditary Peers. We were there, accumulating experience, unconsciously assimilating manners and tradition, not necessarily on the Floor of the House—which would account for the fact that the attendance figures are rather low—for, indeed, it could be anywhere in the building, or perhaps even outside it. After a decade or so, when one had matured, one was able to pass on to the newly-created vulgarians the secret of this priesthood. I thought it was a romantic picture, and who am I to deny it? Certainly the hereditary Peers give more continuity than the Life Peers. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, did not disprove this when he said that Life Peers did not have this opportunity.
Nor do I see why the Government should decide, in the name of some ideological principle, that they do not wish to make any further use of a group of people on whose services they can call. Indeed, they can do so without any risk after they have introduced the two-tier system. This seems to me to be art act of self-sacrifice. However, I am prepared to accept this as the price of the compromise in this case.
With minor reservations—for example, I think there should be votes for all Peers

951
when they sit on Committees to which they are appointed, because the proposals will not otherwise make any sense at all —I entirely support the White Paper. It seems to me to be entirely sensitive to the value of the House, and it sets out to preserve all that is best, and all that it is possible to preserve to-day.
I believe that if the Bill goes through the prospects for the future will be exciting for anyone who is interested in the development and improvement of our own political institutions. This is interestingly covered in Appendix II, which seems to be far-sighted when it discusses the ways in which duplication of procedure on certain Bills could be eliminated, how there could be various joint select committees and so on. It seems to me that co-operation of that sort between this House and the House of Commons is very much needed. There is a certain amount of it now; indeed this House is already invaluable to the House of Commons. But this indispensability is resented, and if there was a reform it would do much to remove that resentment and would be a great gain.
If we are to have reform, let us have it quickly. In 1948 the Parties failed to agree on reform, because the Conservatives would not accept a proposed delaying power which, three years later, they would have been delighted to accept; and which, indeed, was half as long again as what they are now prepared to accept. That must not again be allowed to become a breaking point. If this reform is right, it must be right now, and we should get it out of the way before the next General Election. The quicker the public view of this Chamber is brought into line with reality, the better.
This Bill will have a hard time, and I wish the Government all possible luck. If it fails it will be because the White Paper will have been too good, too finely calculated and precise, too logical, too consistent, too deficient in anomaly and contradictions and obvious error, without any of those hallowed absurdities of our great organs of tradition; in short, insufficiently misunderstood. In that case, my Lords, this country will then have proved that what it needs is a House of Lords in its present form.
7.56 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I shall be brief as the hour is late, and since we are only halfway through to-day's list. I should like to begin by adding my congratulations and thanks to the authors of this White Paper and to the Committee. It is quite obvious that their work has been extraordinarily well and thoroughly done. If we do not all agree with all of it, I do not think that is any reflection on them. Personally, I accept the view that the time has now arrived (if it had not arrived before) to eliminate the hereditary Peerage from voting in this House. I do not see that it can really be validly defended any longer. I know the argument is that it has worked quite well, and I believe that to be perfectly true. But if it has worked in the last 50 years, it has surely been at the price of the loss of almost any form of power for your Lordships' House. For this reason I am in general sympathy with the policies and proposals set out in the White Paper.
Whether a voting House of 230 Peers will be quite so easy to maintain, or will be as workable as some people seem to think, only time will tell, but I am quite certain that it is worth trying. In common with a great many other noble Lords, I have some reservations about this. In the first place, I do not think we can pretend that a voting House is any more democratic than the House as at present constituted. I am quite certain that the Committee considered the alternative, which would be an elected House, and came to the conclusion that a voting House would be more appropriate. With that I agree. However, in common with probably 80 per cent. of other noble Lords who have spoken so far in this debate, I am opposed to the complete elimination from this House (however gradual) of the hereditary Peers, and for the reasons which have already been adduced.
In the first place—and this may be a little unfashionable these days—I believe it will be a pity, and I believe the British public will think it a pity, and will regret the break—for no very good practical reason that I can see—with a very old Constitutional tradition. We are really a part of the history of this country which goes back for centuries. Secondly, I feel—and I know this has been said by almost every other Peer

953
who has spoken—that it will be sad to see the House being deprived of the services of many of its potentially eminent Members.
I know that no one (least of all your Lordships) wishes to claim a monopoly of either wisdom or virtue for the hereditary Peerage. But it cannot he denied that it has in the past contained Members who combined an expert knowledge of their own subject with long experience, as it does to-day. The House is a really representative cross-section of British life. I am sad to think—I am frightened to think—that in years to come it will be gradually deprived of doctors and artists, of industrialists, agriculturalists, members of religious minorities, even of some of its more eccentric Members whom I think we should all regret to see no longer in your Lordships' House, because I am sure we all know the great part they play in our deliberations and discussions.
Noble Lords have also made a great play—and I do agree with this—on the loss to the House of younger Members. We have been told that there are only nine Peers under the age of 40 who attend at all regularly, but surely nine are better than none. I feel that with the reformed House as proposed, it will really be extremely unlikely that very many young Peers will, in the event, find their way into it. I personally regret this position. I think there is a danger that we shall get a House of elderly voting Peers who are nominated because they are fairly near retiring age and, as it were, will not "hold up the seat" for someone else for too long. I hope that if and when this White Paper becomes an Act of Parliament those responsible for the nomination of voting Peers will take this point to heart.
I realise that these points will to some extent be countered, and that an attempt will be made to meet them in the appointment of voting Peers, particularly among the independent Cross-Benchers. But these will be comparatively few in number and in any case the type of hereditary Peer I am thinking of—the non-voting Peer—is unlikely to be attracted to the House by the obligations or responsibilities of voting membership. Therefore, I hope that the Government will take heed of these points, most of which have been made already, and will think again about whether there might
954
be some means of ensuring that at least part of the hereditary Peerage—non-voting, of course—could be retained in a reformed House.
Now may I say a very brief word about Scotland. Like the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and other Scots who have spoken to-day, I was delighted to see that the White Paper recognises the special position of Scotland and Wales in this matter. I do not know myself what the constitutional position is regarding the Act of Union and the number of Scottish representative Peers who are entitled to sit here under that Act, but I agree with my noble friend Lord Perth that this is something which should be looked into before the Bill is drafted.
Another point is that whatever number of Scottish Peers are nominated for your Lordships' House, it is important to remember that Scottish legislation tends on the whole to be fairly non-controversial in a Party political sense and though we want a reasonable Party political balance among Peers, I am not certain that this is so important. What is important is that the Scottish Peers who sit in the House are selected from different parts of Scotland and also from its different professions, because they will have much to contribute and, if past experience is any guide in this House, quite a lot of work to do.
My Lords, I do not wish to say any more to-night. There have been many attempts to reform your Lordships' House and I feel that this is one which, with qualifications, is worthy of your support. As has been said already, I believe that it is a typical British, compromise which should be supported.
8.5 p.m.
BARONESS SWANBOROUGH: My Lords, I am in favour of the White Paper, which I think is a splendid document. It is very readable and extremely well put together, but I must admit that I should be very sorry if we were to lose some of the intangible strength which this House represents. I sit as one who had the good fortune to be the first woman Peer to enter this august Chamber. There must be very few Members of this House who have sat here who will not acknowledge with real gratitude the lessons taught unthinkingly by individual Peers and the opportunities

955
for seeing examples which have no parallel anywhere else. Ten years have taught me much of tolerance and temperate assessment, of thoughtful weighing and balanced judgment. These things have been vouchsafed by watching your Lordships and following worthwhile examples, and I wish I could think that I had learned the lessons glimpsed.
I am a Cross-Bencher because for thirty years my work has demanded a non-political approach, and my allegiance has been to a non-political viewpoint. I am sure that when casting one's vote as an independent individual, it is necessary to be absolutely convinced, and if one is without the support of a Whip's advice it is important to hear the greater part of any debate in order to reach a really objective personal viewpoint.
Sitting on these Benches has disadvantages as well as advantages. Voting, in any case, has to be very seriously accepted and each and every real Cross-Bencher has the additional responsibility of having the privilege of an independent decision. There is the disadvantage of no Whip to guide, to stimulate and to upbraid, and in addition there is very often the fact that noble Lords come to sit on these Benches when their affiliations are political ones but, for Party reasons, they prefer to sit here. Such Peers, I feel, should not be classed as Cross-Benchers. True Cross-Benchers are independent individuals and must always act as such; they must never deflect from an absolutely independent appraisal of situations, conditions and proposals.
Ever since I came to this House I have been conscious of an atmosphere which is unmistakable in its sense of responsibility and its level of integrity. This is something which I am quite sure must never be lost. This is part of the tradition that every one of us must see is preserved. I believe there is a place in the House for Cross-Benchers as part of a whole. I know that Cross-Benchers must be careful and thoughtful in the use of their vote, and I hope most profoundly that the Cross Benches will always be safeguarded from invasion by those who are dissatisfied with their Party allegiance. I also hope that it may he possible to preserve the Cross Benches
956
for those who are truly independent in their outlook.
8.9 p.m.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, with reference to what the noble Baroness has just said, may I say that it is not only the Cross-Benchers who apply individual and personal judgment to the issues on which they vote. I believe that on both sides of the House there is as much freedom of choice on voting as there may be on the Cross Benches. I would rather resent the implication that it is only those who sit on the Cross Benches who exercise independent judgment on the votes they give in this House.
May I make an apology that I was unable to be in the House earlier this afternoon because of an engagement? I wrote a speech about two days ago, and over these two days I have been tearing it to pieces, crossing pieces out, and I should probably have decided to take my name off the speaking list had not the Lord Chancellor in his opening statement yesterday referred to the fact that be believed there was only one unicameralist in the House, and many of my friends identified me as being the one he had in mind. I then felt that I must stand up and be counted. But in fact, probably because I have been longer in the House than some, I need not on this occasion have stood up to be counted, because in our debate on the Peerage Bill in 1963 I declared myself as a unicameralist. So it is not a new situation.
At that time, in 1963, my old friend, the late Lord Morrison, proceeded to "tear a strip off" me. He profoundly disagreed with my position as a unicameralist, but he went on to say something which I think really demolished his own case and established mine. For example, he said, one of the defences of Parliamentary democracy against encroachment by this House is the fact that this House's composition is irrational. Therefore he was against the elected principle here. It would never do he said (I am only paraphrasing) for this place to be elected, because for that very reason it would be a more effective rival to the House of Commons. It would make this place a little too respectable, perhaps, at the expense of the other place. The fact that it is irrational makes it more difficult for this House to interfere with the will

957
of the people. The proposals of the White Paper would make this House, in Lord Morrison's words, "a little more respectable", and therefore more powerful. I am against that, and I would rather see the composition of this House unchanged and only its delaying power curtailed. In this respect, my Lords, I find myself, for almost the first time in my life, in agreement with the leading article in The Times by David Wood, which is headed Lords Reform is Poor Bargain for Labour". I think that is probably the most astute reflection that has been made on this particular White Paper.
I feel that what is needed at the moment is not so much reform of the House of Lords as reform of the House of Commons. If the House of Commons were reformed on a rational basis then my case as a unicameralist would be complete. But, of course, it is not for me, as a Member of this House—it would be an impertinence on my part—to tell the House of Commons how they should reform themselves. I can do that privately in conversation with Members of that House, many of whom are in agreement with me.
That brings me to my central point. I completely challenge the view, so often expressed in this House, that it is a great revisionist Chamber. Perhaps 95, 98 or 99 per cent. of the Amendments made to Bills are Government Amendments. In the main, if they are Opposition Amendments, forced by Division on the Government, they go to the other House who reverse them; and this House accepts that reversal. I should have thought that the other House, by a revision of its procedure, could have, perhaps between the Committee and Report stages, a sufficient delay to allow all these things that normally come to us to be dealt with in that House.
There are Government Amendments which require possibly the normal sort of consequential Amendments; there are Amendments on which the Minister says, "If the honourable Member will withdraw that Amendment. I will try to put it in better form"; there are Amendments on which the Minister says, "If the honourable Member will withdraw it I will look at it again and see how far I can meet him"; there are Amendments which arise from the fact that the Parliamentary draftsman needs to have another
958
look and to do a little more perfecting. All these Amendments which come to us could be dealt with in the House of Commons if there were a sufficient delay between the Committee stage and the Report stage.
There are only two elements in the White Paper with which I find myself in agreement. I repeat, I believe in single-Chamber government, and therefore what I say has to be qualified by that. But I should have thought that as abolition of your Lordships' House is not for the moment practical politics (I accept that and accept that your Lordships' House will continue for many years to come, long after I cease to be a Member), there are only two things that need to be done. If the House is not to be abolished I would say, "Leave its composition exactly as it is now". I do not mind the operation of the hereditary principle, because it keeps your Lordships' House so irrational that nobody is going to give it very great importance. I would do only two of the things set out in the White Paper. Paragraph 73(k) states that the House should impose a delay of only six months. Excellent. Then there is paragraph 11 of Appendix II, which deals with subordinate legislation. If the delaying power of this House is reduced to six months, and subordinate legislation is dealt with as indicated in the White Paper, I see no need for the reform of this House until the day arrives when there is sufficient volume of opinion on my side in favour of its abolition.
8.20 p.m.
VISCOUNT FALKLAND: My Lords, I have a very few words that I want to say towards the end of this mammoth Debate. People of other countries have the greatest admiration for the quality of debates in your Lordships' House and respect for the time spent by your Lordships on lengthy and sometimes very boring Committees. I have shown a great many of these people around the house, and they have said so time and time again.
Are we hereditary Peers throughout the country at large just a lot of boring, bumbling windbags, not worthy to have the right to vote? I should feel less than "incurably a poodle" if I attended your Lordships' House without this right. Attending this House as a second-rate

959
Peer would be as abhorrent to me as to be classed as a second-rate citizen. A great many noble Lords would not be happy to attend under these conditions, and I think this country would lose a great deal in the long run if this change in the composition of this House were to take place.
I am in complete agreement about the need for reform, but not all the reforms set out in this "wishy-washy" White Paper. But I see no chance in the foreseeable future of getting a better deal. Being an old dodderer of 63 (less than 10 years from euthanasia) getting something worse would not bother me unduly; therefore, I shall vote against the White Paper.
But I am thinking of the younger of your Lordships, much younger, who may suffer if this White Paper is thrown out. And a number of young Peers are essential if this House is to keen and restore its value to this country as an ancient but modernised Estate of the Realm.
I should like to mention and quote a few words about the right reverend Prelates in this House—none of them is here to-day. I would like to mention James VI of Scotland and James I of England, of blessed memory, who said, "No Bishops, no Kings" and others who said, "No ceremony, no Bishops". In the early part of the 17th year of Charles I, 1641, the Commons passed a Bill,
"to restrain the Bishops, and others in Holy Orders, from intermeddling in secular affairs,"
or, in other words, to prevent them from voting in Parliament. The Lords rejected the Bill by a large majority. Later, another Bill fell to the ground. The account given of its failure by Lord Clarendon (as Mr. Hyde, constant chairman of Committees on the Bill, which was debated for nearly 20 days) is curious. He said:
"They only who prosecuted the Bill with impatience remaining in the House, and the others who abhorred it growing weary of so tiresome an attendance, left the House at dinner time …"
So that a forbear of mine, Lucius Cary, was wont to say that "they who hated the Bishops hated them worse than the Devil, and they that loved them did not love them so well as their dinner." An Act was finally passed in 1642, and the Bishops remained excluded from Parlia-
960
ment, not only during the period of the Commonwealth but even for some time after the Restoration.
I should like to end with a quotation I have from the New York Times, sent to me by an American friend. The quotation says:
"The White Paper sounds like the death of velvet-and-ermine robes and all that! It almost makes reality of the threat made by the Fairy Queen to the Peers in W. S. Gilbert's spoof of the House of Lords lolanthe:
'Titles shall enoble then
All the common council men'
to which the Peers replied 'Spare us!'"
8.26 p.m.
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON: My Lords, I am happy to be able to follow my noble friend Lord Falkland. I hope that he does not carry out his implied threat of deserting this House after the proposed reform and that your Lordships will have the benefit of his counsel in future. We have heard many speeches to-day, some of them very good. I think, possibly because I agreed with every word in it, we had one extremely good speech which was made by the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald. My first reaction on reading this White Paper was that it ought to be burned by the common hangman. However, apart from the fact that that grisly and repulsive gentleman no longer exists, I have had some second thoughts on this point since coming to your Lordships' House. One of the advantages of coming to your Lordships' House is that it can develop a tolerant outlook. Though one may have a quiet half-hour with The Times, when one tears it to pieces one sees that the people with whom one may disagree profoundly are in fact human. That is one of the good things about your Lordships' House.
I respect absolutely the integrity of those who worked together to draw up this unfortunate document, and I believe that they have tried hard to reconcile the irreconcilable. That the results are lamentable is no fault of theirs. Rather it is inherent in the nature of our problem, and it has indeed been frequently predicted that any attempt to tinker with the membership of this House would have just this sort of result. I think that we might very well have left well alone, and I say this now because during most of my speech I shall be dealing with what I consider to be the only genuine way in

961
which this House and the British Constitution should be reformed once it is admitted that reform is inevitable. The question of inevitability is really in the hands of Her Majesty's Government. If they are, as they seem to be, determined to go ahead, then that determination makes reform inevitable, and, however regretfully, we must accept it. It is none the less our duty as Members of this House to comment on and if necessary condemn the proposals they put forward.
My Lords, it is inherent in the nature of true reform that it should make things better and not worse. We should therefore judge these proposals in the White Paper not as they affect our own interests, whether we are to be first or second-class Peers, or even as they affect this House, with all it means to us, but as they will affect this country and whether they will do positive good or harm to the British people; and, indeed, whether those people will think them acceptable. We all share the belief that the people as a whole have a fundamental right to decide how and by whom they will be governed. I think it could also be agreed that our present Constitution reflects this belief somewhat imperfectly, and not only or principally because of the hereditary nature of the membership of your Lordships' House. The electoral system by which Members of another place hold their seats can, and usually does, produce the phenomenon of a Party having a majority with less than 50 per cent. of the total votes cast. Once assured of this majority the Government can do more or less as they please, subject only to the limited and almost unused delaying power of your Lordships' House. They can act as if they represented the majority of the British people, which in fact they usually do not, and they can, and do, use this so-called mandate from the people as a stick with which to beat your Lordships' House and any other organisation which presumes to oppose them.
Noble Lords on the Liberal Benches will find it hard to disagree with me when point out the fatal disadvantage under which their Party has laboured so long and, I might say—though I am no Liberal —so heroically. One would have thought that in a proposed reform of an Upper House or of our Constitution some account might he taken of the wishes of those millions of people whose vote is
962
virtually wasted, not to speak of those who might have voted Liberal or Scottish National or "what-have-you" had they thought that it would do any good. It is, of course, very kind of the Government to say that we hereditary Peers may stay on as non-voting Peers and teat no-one is going to be seriously inconvenienced. I am sure they mean well, and I thank them. But that, after all, is not the point. The point is, or should be, to make our Constitution better, whether or not people, including political leaders, are inconvenienced. If this House is to be reformed in the interests of democratic theory then I hold that it should be truly democratic. It should be elected on a basis that gives a voice to those who are not properly represented in the other place.
My Lords, I have stated what I believe to be the only solution of this dilemma which is fair to the British people. In the past, those who succeeded to seats in your Lordships' House sat here because in those days they were the natural leaders of the British people, in that under the Crown they represented the pinnacle of a stable and mainly rural social order. They were, or ideally they should have been, trustees for the British peoples whose natural leaders they had become by heredity or by signal and duly re-rewarded service to the State. They held power, authority and position, and as a body they constituted a natural and accepted check on the occasional impetuosity of their juniors who sat in the other place. They were, in effect, an estate of the realm.
In the past, to act without the consent of the nobility was useless, because the nobility would turn one out. We who now sit where the ancient nobility once sat can no longer claim the entrenched authority and position which were theirs by natural right. None the less, I consider that such power and position as we still have is held in trust for the British people. I hold that the power which we hold on behalf of the British people should be surrendered to them and to no one else. It should not be given to the patronage of the Crown as exercised by the Prime Minister, and it should not be given to the Cabinet and the Shadow Cabinet to wrangle over.
I understand that the Commons will I not accept an elected Upper House, and

963
that those who want one are voices crying in the wilderness. Voices that cry in the wilderness have a habit of being heard. The Leaders of the Parties are in general agreed on this White Paper, so there is little chance of a reform on the basis of a democratically elected Upper House coming out of the present discussions. Instead, we are to get an assembly which is agreeable to those in power and to those who may in the course of a few years assume power. Things are to be arranged so that it can be relied upon to give general support to the Government of the day. The Cross-Benchers will hold the balance, though we are not told what will happen should the majority of them become a nuisance and decide to give general support to the Opposition. No doubt things will be arranged to counteract any such demonstrations of independence.
As I see it, the new House is unlikely to present much inconvenience to the Government of the day. It is to be complementary to the Commons, and its work is likely to be integrated with that of the other place, whatever that may mean. At all events, it will possess no entrenched powers and, in spite of all that has been said to-day, its veto will be quite as ineffective as that of the present House. Its membership will be no more democratic than that of the present House and, since it will be selected by patronage rather than by the more chancy system of heredity, it is likely to be a good deal more malleable. Should all these precautions which are being taken to ensure a docile and well-behaved assembly fail to achieve their objective, the Government can still abolish it or browbeat it into submission.
My Lords, what a wretched apology for a reform this is! Our ancestors who put through so many great reforms in the past were the authors of the Reform Bills, of the abolition of the slave trade, of Catholic emancipation. What would they think of this monstrous parody of a reform that we are being asked to discuss to-day? I do not hold with the doctrine that it is the business of Parliament to make things easy for the Government. This is a medieval formula which was decisively rejected in this country more than 300 years ago. It
964
is a pernicious weed of a doctrine which should be rooted up before it spreads and smothers what is left of the liberties of the British people.
I think that there is a fair comparison between the situation of your Lordships' House over the last few years and that of the Roman Senate in the time of the Caesars. Both assemblies were subjected to bullying and thinly-veiled threats. The main difference that I can see is that, while the Senators were threatened with the loss of their heads, your Lordships have been threatened with the loss of your seats. Not unnaturally, your Lordships have been a little bolder, but not much.
We had the Rhodesian vote. It was something of a Gilbertian charade which would only have provoked a Government determined to be provoked. The Caesars did not take kindly to being needled; nor, apparently, do Her Majesty's Government. The talks on the future of this House were abruptly terminated and we were told that we had gone too far. A great deal of hot air was generated, but Her Majesty's Government seem to have regained control over their temper sufficiently to produce a White Paper which substantially reflects the discussion. Have we any guarantee that Her Majesty's Government will keep their temper if they are similarly provoked by the reformed House? I think not.
My Lords, I, and I dare say many of your Lordships, have been approached by members of the public and asked questions such as, "I do not like the Transport Bill"—or this or that Bill— "Why don't you vote against it in the House of Lords?" Under our present system, one has to answer, rather ashamedly, that one can do little or nothing. This is the point I wish to make in regard to this proposed reform. Our Constitution is weak because there is no effective limit to the powers of another place, and this is so because your Lordships' House lacks authority and power.
In order to remedy this situation, I put it to your Lordships that there is only one solution, and it is emphatically not the solution which has been proposed in the White Paper. The Upper House should be given the only authority which is respected in a democratic society. It must be elected by the people, who will then participate more effectively in

965
Government knowing that they can choose their representatives in both Houses of Parliament. If this upsets some Members of another place, I would say this: they do not like your Lordships' House because it is not an elected Chamber, so they ought to accept the logical alternative. To make this House elective would be the only true way to reform it, and I appeal to your Lordships not to support this wretched half-baked reform which is proposed in the White Paper.
This White Paper is not a true reform in line with liberal and democratic thought. No, my Lords, it is a document which, while purporting to democratise the Constitution, in effect does the exact opposite. It does not give more power to the people; it gives more power to the Government to direct what the people shall do. I will not repeat the propositions on which the White Paper is based. I will spare your Lordships that. But I put it to your Lordships that these pro-positions, if implemented, will reduce your Lordships' House to a mere cypher; and, further, that it is precisely that type of assembly which tyrants have aimed to create since the dawn of history.
On the basis of these propositions, I could go one further and say that it would promote the more efficient working of Parliament as a whole to do without a Second Chamber altogether. Then, since I take it that efficiency is the aim, why have a Parliament at all? The Government could then get its edicts on the Statute Book with the help of expert civil servants, and without the tiresome necessity of having them debated and subjected to frustration and delay. All these things seem to me logically to follow from these propositions. I hope that they will not commend themselves to your Lordships.
8.37 p.m.
VISCOUNT BARRINGTON: My Lords, before I say the few things that I propose to say on the White Paper, as I do not propose to follow the noble Lord, Lord Belhaven and Stenton, in many of the things he said, I should like to thank him for his kind remarks about the "heroic" quality shown on the Liberal Benches. I regret that I do not feel so heroic as I should like to on the occasion.
966
The other thing that I should like to do is to say how sorry I was not to hear the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, which I understand was excellent, and how delighted I was not to have missed the maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, which I thought (I hope in his absence it is not wrong to say this) was quite outstanding. He mentioned the traditional prerogative of maidens to be on their guard. I understand that technically he was not a maiden; but that this fact was discreetly overlooked by the noble Lord the Leader of the House, who skirted it with all the delicacy of a gentleman explorer skirting a virgin forest. I hope we shall hear the noble Earl often in this House.
To come on, I hope briefly, to the subject of the debate, which is mainly the position of the hereditary Peerage, the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, when mentioning the "St. Aldwyn Whip" in his extremely stirring "All Saints" oration, referred to the fact that he was here by an accident of death. It will save some of your Lordships' time if I go quite briefly into a little of my family history, only because it pinpoints the main point I want to make. If my grandfather (and I shall not go back further than that), had not suffered a mild stroke at the age of 19 and been assured that he could not live for another year, and if consequently he had not spent the remainder of the 86 years of his life exclusively either watching the Eton and Harrow match when it was on, or remembering it when it was not, it is possible, only possible, that as well as having inherited a seat in your Lordships' House, however temporarily, I might have also inherited the Lordship of the Manor of Shrivenham, which would have given me a rather delightful privilege which I only heard about recently. The privilege is that if the Monarch, or any representative of the Monarch, should pass or cross over that land, the right, and indeed the duty, of the Lord of the Manor is to present him with two white capons, with—and this is the point I want to make—what I think is a useful and saving formula to this effect: "Behold my Lord, two white capons which it is my privilege to present to you at another time, but not now." The words "but not now" are the words

967
I want to stress, because before saying anything about the merits or demerits of the White Paper, I have to confess that I agree with my noble friend Lord Foot, who made this point the other day—and I think it is the only point on which I disagree with my noble Deputy Leader, Lord Henley—in feeling that whatever the merits of this White Paper the timing is one for which I can see no defence from the point of view of Parliament or the country, although it may have been very convenient possibly to certain members of the Executive.
The hereditary principle has been going for a long time, and if we are to abolish the hereditary principle we shall have to go a lot further than abolishing hereditary titles. I will certainly "not now", in the words of my formula, go into the question of which qualities in a meritocracy are or are not inherited. As applied to the debates in your Lordships' House. which is really what we are discussing, some wonder has been expressed that they have ever worked. I share that wonder, because I think your Lordships' House has been an attempt in the past—and I should say a not unsuccessful attempt—to do something which I think is probably impossible; that is, to combine the qualities which, in the French Revolution, were described as liberty, equality and fraternity. Your Lordships' House has been criticised on all of these points. Fraternity has, of course, received a bad knock, and I shall not go into the criticism of this House on the ground that everybody is the cousin of somebody else. But I was very glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, assure us that every attempt would be made to preserve the liberty which is one of the charms of debate in this House. That assurance is the most comforting thing I have heard in the course of this debate.
Equality has, of course, been abandoned, perhaps necessarily, but I think it may be prematurely, by the introduction for the first time of a two-tier Peerage. I think the noble Viscount, Lord Monckton of Brenchley, is the only Peer who so far has mentioned that the word "Peer" means "equal", and that an unequal Peerage is something of a contradiction in terms, like a static transport system—but we may be accustomed even
968
to that. In this House up to now every Peer, even the humblest Duke, who may, for all I know, be a backwoodsman has had as much right not only to be heard but to vote as the most capable and efficient Life Peer. The proposal now is—and I quite accept it as being a necessary one if we are going to alter the position —to introduce what I shall call "walking noblemen" and "talking noblemen".
In Dickens's day there used to be on the stage a form of actor called a "walking gentleman". I never quite knew whether he was inferior or superior to the others, but there seems to be some doubt in your Lordships' House as to whether those noble Lords who are to be allowed to vote are in a better position or a worse position of class than those who are only allowed to talk. We have run the gamut of opinion from "A" to "B" on that. "A" was expressed by my noble friend Lady Asquith, who said she would rather be anything than a "fourpenny stamp", and "B", I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, who considered it was humiliating for any of us to vote in this House on the grounds that our vote would be overridden in another place. I stand halfway between the two. There are some matters on which I should prefer, if I were allowed, to vote and not talk; others on which I should prefer to talk and not vote. I have no doubt what your Lordships would prefer me to do, and for that reason I shall try to conclude what I have to say in one minute, or a minute and a half.
The humiliation which the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, mentioned is, I think, one to which hereditary Peers are fairly accustomed, having long been classified in law books, as has been pointed out, with infants, lunatics, imbeciles, undischarged bankrupts and various other things. There may be difficulties in the actual voting arrangements in this House. What happens to the hereditary Peers when a Question is put to the vote? Will they be ejected from the House by a sort of hereditary-Peer ejector? Will they be able to find sanctuary on the Bishops' Benches? Will they be allowed to sit on the Steps; and, if so, will the Steps be provided with a gallery? Or will they be, as the noble Lord said, expected to disappear permanently?

969
The last danger that I see—and it is a serious one—is what I am already sucsumbing to the temptation to do. There are occasions when one wants to express an opinion, and one can do it very shortly by voting, without taking up your Lordships' time. There might be a temptation for noble Lords such as myself, as a Back Bench Liberal Peer, who are not allowed to vote, and indeed may be quite unqualified in that respect, to speak on more occasions than they otherwise would, simply in order to state their point of view. I can think of two possible ways of dealing with that. One, I think, would be some form of guillotine —I hope not actually physically cutting our vocal chords or anything of that kind. Or it could be by the introduction of some machinery for stopping them after a certain time—that would be a temptation for a Government which many of your Lordships would probably welcome. I think it would be a mistake. I began with a formula, and the only individual contribution I can make, as a non-holder of the Manor of Shrivenham, is that one should adapt that formula much as I adapt it to show my feelings towards the White Paper by saying that it is my duty and privilege as a hereditary Viscount to give two cheers—or perhaps, if I sit only as a Baron, only one cheer—for this White Paper. But "not now". I think that on those occasions a formula could be found for Peers to speak to this effect: "My Lords, I rise to express my agreement"—or disagreement— "with this Motion"—or this Amendment— "which I shall express by vote, or should have expressed by vote, but 'not now'" That is all I have to say, my Lords, and I hope that I have not trespassed too much upon your Lordships' time.
8.50 p.m.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, from a Constitutional point of view, the legislation foreshadowed by this White Paper will be easily the most important ever to have been brought before your Lordships' House since the Reform Bill of 1832. It is a matter of the deepest regret to me that it should have been brought forward by the present Government, and not by one of the Conservative Governments over the last 25 years. The reform of your Lord
970
ships' House is a matter in which I have for a long time been deeply interested. As long ago as 1932, when I was a quite young Member of another place, I was invited by the father of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, to be one of two young Tory Members of Parliament to join his Committee of some 10 or 12 of the most respected Members of your Lordships' House in an endeavour to work out a good and agreed system of reform. We had some 20 meetings, and we came to pretty unanimous conclusions as regards the composition of the House. Unfortunately, it eventually broke down on powers.
There is very little in the present White Paper of which I can approve. I agree with the principle of the limitation of voting Members in your Lordships' House, and I am prepared to have a two-tier system, but—and I cannot in the time at my disposal deal with all the points with which I should like to deal—one of the most important points is the question of the payment of the future voting Peers. Although the Government Front Benches have specifically denied that any particular salary has been indicated, it is pretty generally agreed that the figure of £2,000 is rather more than a figure just floating in the air. It has also been said that the Prime Minister's patronage will be reduced rather than increased by this. But I submit that though it may be reduced in volume, it is going to be very much increased in quality; and I fear that the introduction of the £2,000 a year provision may well mean the beginning of something akin to the corruption in American politics.
What must the voting Peer do to earn his money? He has to attend one-third of the Sittings of your Lordships' House. But what does this in fact mean? He has merely to come in, catch the Clerk's eye, and go out again. If he does that for one-third of the Session, he has earned his money. There is no provision whereby he really has to earn it. Although there is a provision that in certain circumstances he can be removed from being a voting Peer, how is anybody going to prove this when his name duly appears day after day, and he need be in your Lordships' House for only five minutes? That is a very weak aspect of the proposal.

971
Then there is a matter which has already been alluded to by many speakers—the way in which the age of your Lordships' House, already rather on the high side, is going to be still further increased. In spite of all that has been said on both sides of the House, I cannot see how it is going to be possible for young men in normal circumstances ever to become Members. It is true that those who are already Members of the House will continue all their lives. I should like to draw to your Lordships' attention three names. During the last few years the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, has earned for himself a high and well-deserved reputation in your Lordships' House.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: But, my Lords, he has been able to do so only because he was able to enter the House as a young man and gradually speak and make his mark. To-day we heard the excellent maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, still not 30 years of age; and yesterday we had the most excellent maiden speech by the noble Lord, Lord Feversham, whose speech impressed me a great deal. In fact, I looked at a work of reference in order to learn more about him. What I saw amazed me to such an extent that I checked in a second work of reference to see if the first could possibly be right. The noble Lord, Lord Feversham, is still only 23 years of age; although what I may be pardoned for calling his hirsute appendages made him appear considerably older. Those three young men will be in your Lordships' House for all their lives, but in years to come other young men who may well have equal ability will not come to this House.
I can see no reason whatsoever, nor has any valid reason been produced by the Government, why young men when they succeed to Peerages should not continue to be able to sit and speak in your Lordships' House, and then gradually to become voting Peers if and when they show their merit. The only argument put up against it was that put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, who said that we might have 750 coming in. When have we ever had 750 in the past? Is there any reason to suppose that we shall
972
ever have that number in the future? I suggest that the fairest way of dealing with this matter would be to say that any person of any age, on succeeding to a Peerage, could claim to have a writ of summons so that he could attend and gradually familiarise himself with the work of your Lordships' House. There would be no Constitutional or practical objection to that. The only reason against this course, one may assume, is the spite and malice felt by the Socialist Party towards the hereditary Peerage.
Let us take the position of the senior Members of your Lordships' House under the two-tier voting system. The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, has rather stolen my thunder in mentioning the case of Sir Winston Churchill, but let us see what the position will be. Someone is going to be here for a number of years as a voting Peer. At the age of 72 he will abruptly be told, "Old man, you are now senile. You are no longer fit to be a voting Peer. Get down among the 'fourpenny Peers'". At the same time another elderly gentleman, perhaps a man of 75 years of age, will be told, "Oh, but you are a Minister of the Crown. Perhaps you are a Cabinet Minister in charge of a Department, to which is entrusted the spending of hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money. You are quite all right. You at 75 are not to he compared with that enfeebled old dodderer of 72". It would require the pen of the late W. S. Gilbert, or the happily still alive Sir Alan Herbert, to do justice to that situation.
It is lamentable that the Government did not provide, at least for a provisional and experimental period, for a certain number of hereditary Peers, partly to be nominated by the heads of Parties and partly to be elected from among your Lordships' own ranks to be Members of the House. Admittedly, the proposals in the White Paper are going to be very much of an experiment. Surely there can be no reason why the experiment I have just suggested should not be made; and then, at the end of a limited period—perhaps five years' time—if it did not work (although I am quite certain it would) it could be reversed. These are things which I feel are absolutely wrong, and which I regret very much our own Front Bench should be prepared to swallow.

973
I should like to join the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, in their criticism that the talk of what is to he done for Scottish representation here is all much too vague. Actually, so far as I can see, the exclusion of Peers of Scotland as such is another direct breach of the Act of Union, and it is one that will be felt and remembered in Scotland. It will certainly add to the strength of the Scottish Nationalists. During all my 34 years of experience in your Lordships' House the Peers of Scotland have always played at least their full part in the deliberations of your Lordships' House. To-day, for example, I am the eighth Peer of Scotland to address your Lordships—and by "Peer of Scotland" I mean those Peers who hold a Peerage of Scotland dating back to not later than 1707. There are also, of course, about half-a-dozen Scotsmen who hold Peerages who have spoken—and there were a great many such Peers yesterday, as well. It is not right, and it is unfair and derogatory to Scotland, that no proper constitutional provision should he made for continuing the representation of the Peers of Scotland.
My Lords, time is getting on and I do not want to inflict myself for an undue length upon your Lordships. We have now, unfortunately, an agreement between the Front Benches that this Paper is, if not from the point of view of my own Front Bench something which is wholly admirable, something which they can recommend. I am afraid I cannot agree with my own Front Bench in that regard. In fact, I regard their attitude towards it as being distinctly un-Tory. In this one regard they are by no means "True Blue". Their shade, if one looked it up in a horticultural chart, would be somewhere between buddlia mauve and phlox puce—and they are not shades which I like from a Parliamentary point of view.
To-morrow, I know, we shall have an eloquent and specious speech from the Leader of our Party urging us to support this White Paper. On this occasion, my Lords—and I hope on this occasion only —it is my painful duty to ask your Lordships to regard our noble Leader, not as a shining beacon beckoning us on towards a constitutional land of milk and honey, but rather as a will-o-the-wisp—
974
"An ignis fatuus that bewitches,
And leads Peers into pools and ditches".
And into pools and ditches will disappear a great deal of the prestige, of the traditions and of the authority of your Lordships' House which, once gone, can never be retrieved. For that reason, I hope that a very large number of your Lordships will to-morrow night support the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, in the Lobby; and will register a most emphatic vote against this White Paper, telling the Government and our own Party to take it away and to bring back something more practical, less objectionable and less derogatory to your Lordships' House.
9.4 p.m.
LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE: My Lords, may I begin by just a word of personal background against which some of the remarks I am about to make will have to be heard? I have been a Member of your Lordships' House for rearly twelve years, and in none of those years have I anything like attained the standard of 33⅓ per cent. attendance. In recent years I may have reached the second category of between 5 and 33⅓ per cent., but as I am situated, with all the will in the world to do what I can at all times to assist in the work of this House, I see no prospect of being able to qualify for the 33⅓ per cent. category.
Much of what I say relates very closely to the line taken by my noble friend Lord Mansfield. I cannot pretend to speak with the same experience or authority as he, but my first point is in relation to hereditary Peers. I find it hard to accept the principle that legislation which nullifies a right conferred by the Crown by Letters Patent under Seal can be passed as lightly as is now proposed. Yet there can be no justification as I see it, either in theory or in practice, for a system which ensures that overhanging a vote on any issue of importance there is an overwhelming built-in Party majority consisting largely of Peers who take no part in the proceedings of the House. Therefore, my Lords, I support the need for reform in this respect.
But as I see it the proposals in the White Paper go too far. There are today and there will be in the future some Peers by succession who have special knowledge and experience which could

975
be of great value to this House. We can all think of some who rarely attend your Lordships' House but who, when they do, speak with an authority derived from personal knowledge and experience of the subject under debate; and there will be others such in future. But over and above that, as has been suggested by several noble Lords, that source, the Peers by succession, could well contribute to the fount of youth from which a House, otherwise dependent for its recruitment mainly on Life Peers, could be refreshed and invigorated—and in that context, my Lords, may I say how well the maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, gave point to that remark.
So it is that I should like to see the right of attendance and participation, the right, in fact, to receive the Writ of Summons, extended to all those Peers by succession (whether they succeed before reform or after it) who accept the obligations of full working membership from Parliament to Parliament. I will deal with voting membership later. With that condition I believe there it little risk of future sittings of your Lordships' House being swamped by future Peers by succession. In this connection, may I say that I recognise that in the application of the attendance qualification there is a real problem in relation to Scottish Peers, as was explained by the noble Earls, Lord Perth and Lord Dundee, earlier this afternoon.
This leads me to my second point, the point of voting membership. I share the dislike expressed in many quarters of the idea of having two classes of Peers; and there seems to me to be great force in the argument that if a Peer is entitled to attend and take part in a debate, whether a debate of the whole House or of the House in Committee, he should be entitled to vote in that debate. Nevertheless, I would accept an attendance qualification as being a reasonable condition in all the circumstances, and not least because of the argument that I have adduced in connection with my first point. The proposal, however, that the Government of the day should have a built-in majority of 10 per cent., or any other percentage, over the aggregate vote of the Opposition Parties would not, in practice, be necessary if voting right is based on attendance
976
qualification. With the proposed restriction in the delaying powers of the House, could we not leave this question for the time being? I was much impressed with what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said on this subject yesterday. The exercise of the functions described in paragraph 8 of the White Paper would not be adversely affected in practice if the Government of the day were, for a time, less than 10 per cent. in strength above the strength of the Opposition Parties.
It seems to me that the proposal for the built-in voting majority of the Government of the day has two serious disadvantages. First, the loss of independence to which the noble Marquess. Lord Salisbury, and others referred and on which I need not elaborate, save to make the point that a small infusion—and it could not, in practice, be more than small—of future Peers by succession would help preserve the independent character of this House. The second disadvantage relates to numbers. I am afraid that this may be somewhat complicated. I would not presume to argue with the mathematical models referred to in paragraph 47 or the accuracy of the computer's answers to the data fed into it. Incidentally, in that connection there is no indication that I can find in the White Paper that that data includes an allowance for the creation of new Peers for what might be termed "normal" reasons as distinct from the creations to replace deaths, resignations and retirement.
However, leaving that aside, I offer the following calculation for consideration. I hope your Lordships will accept my assurance that although I speak from these Benches I am not speaking in any way from a Party standpoint. All noble Lords, whatever their Party, are, I am sure, concerned to make this reform work efficiently. We are told that the Government consider that, in the first instance, a reasonable number for an efficient House would be between 200 and 250, excluding Law Lords and Bishops, but they foresee the possibility of that having to be extended as the work of the House expands. Nevertheless, it would not be unreasonable to take the position at this first change as it is stated in paragraph 48; that is, immediately after reform. That position,

977
in numbers, there stated is: the Government, 105; the main Opposition Party, 80; other Opposition Parties, 15; and Cross Benchers, 30. This makes a total of 230. After the first change—and this could be in a very short period—if in the meantime deaths, resignations or retirements had not exceeded the normal creation of new Peers, the position, as I understand it from what was said in the White Paper, would have to be: the new Government, total 132; the main Opposition Party, at its previous figure, 105; other Opposition Parties, 15; Cross Benchers, 30. This gives a total of 282. That gives the new Government a 10 per cent. majority; that is, 132 over 120, which is the total of the main Opposition and the other Opposition Parties. Therefore, 52 new Peers would have had to be created for that first change.
After five years we may expect deaths, resignations and retirements to have exceeded new "normal" creations, and the total number of Peers required would be less than the theoretical maximum, which I calculate, on the same basis as the previous calculation, would be 339. It would be unlikely on any count after five years, if there were two changes in the five years, that the total number would not exceed 300. This is something that I think is well worth further consideration. To my mind, it would certainly be a bad thing if retirement by age had to be resorted to in order to keep the House in manageable size and provide the Government of the day with a working majority.
My third point relates to the age limit. I myself am over 72, but I have already indicated that I could not hope to satisfy the attendance qualifications, which I do not think unreasonable. Therefore, I hope that I may be acquitted of a self-interest in this matter. But to preclude, as is proposed, any Peer, however constant in his attendance and however wise and experienced, from voting either in the House or in Committee merely because he has attained some specified age, particularly what to many of us is so young an age as 72, really is a nonsense. There are scores of examples of Peers whose judgment has not deteriorated at that or at a much later age. The fact that such Peers may be able, with their knowledge and experience, to influence
978
in debate the thinking of others is undisputed. But to disqualify such Peers from voting simply because they have passed some arbitrary age limit is a great mistake.
I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, said on this subject yesterday. He instanced the late Earl Attlee and also drew a remarkably accurate picture of the sort of language one might have expected from the late Sir Winston Churchill had such a proposal in other circumstances been put to him. I had a word with the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, and I have his permission to take an example nearer home. The noble Lord, Lord Milverton, who normally sits on the Bench from which I am speaking, is a splendid case in point. His knowledge and experience of many countries in the Commonwealth is unrivalled in your Lordships' House. Yet, under the White Paper proposals, he would be precluded from voting, for example, on some question of policy in regard to Nigeria. Could anything be more absurd? I think that a voting qualification based on an arbitrary age limit, wherever fixed, is wrong.
As I see it, the three points I have endeavoured to make are points of substance. I could not therefore bring myself to vote for a Motion giving general approval to the proposals in the White Paper. From some of the things I have said, it will be clear that I am not against reform; but as the Motion is framed I must vote against it.
9.18 p.m.
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: My Lords. I have been a Member of your Lordships' House, as a second-generation Peer, for some 21 years. Though I have not been able to attend the House as often as I should like, and certainly not regularly during those years, nor have I borne the burden of the day in legislation and the like, as marry of your Lordships have, I have greatly appreciated being a Member of this House and have increasingly admired its ability to adjust itself to the changing needs of the country. I believe that no body is less concerned with its own rights and privileges; no body is more concerned with its duty and its service to the community, and no collection of people are more sincere and

979
less pompous in the execution of what they conceive to be their duty.
I think that tradition and the hereditary principle have much to do with these excellent attributes of your Lordships' House. Nevertheless, I fully accept that it is not practicable in this present age, nor, probably, is it efficient in enabling this House to do its job, to retain the hereditary principle as it affects legislation. Therefore I welcome, in general, the proposals put forward in the White Paper as a solution to this issue. No doubt they are not ideal, but then democracy itself is not ideal: it is the best way that we have found up to now of governing ourselves.
These proposals, as I understand them, will enable voting Peers to deal more efficiently with the issues which affect legislation. They will still enable other Peers—those who cannot come regularly; those who are fully employed elsewhere in industry, business, commerce and the professions—to continue to come along, as in the past, and contribute their advice and help on subjects on which they have special skill and experience. But I greatly regret (I know that many others have made this point, and I will put it briefly) that aspect of the White Paper proposals which will involve abolition of the hereditary principle after this generation; it will abolish the hereditary principle for the non-voting Peers, though it will continue for the time being.
I strongly support the very fine speech of my noble friend Lord Denham (which unfortunately I did not hear, but which I have read with great interest), and his proposal that hereditary Peers should continue to receive the Writ whether, as the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair, said, they succeed before or after the reform proposals have been approved. They should continue to have the right to attend and speak as non-voting Peers; and no doubt in time some of them will qualify to be appointed voting Peers, in whatever way seems best in the future.
I will not repeat the arguments put by my noble friend Lord Denham, but I should like to add one. The vast majority of hereditary Peers come and speak in your Lordships' House because they believe they have a duty to make a contribution from their own special knowledge and experience; and in doing so
980
they add greatly to the debates here. I believe that in many cases the fact that his father has done this adds a bias in the direction of encouraging the son to come here and add his contribution to the debates, as he sees fit. Therefore I am strongly in favour of retaining this hereditary principle for non-voting Peers.
I enjoyed tremendously the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald —a powerful and courageous speech of the type to which we are well accustomed; and I know that the whole House did, too. But I disagree with him entirely that these proposals mean the abolition of the House of Lords. If the change that I propose is made, it will allow hereditary Peers to continue to come here as non-voting Peers; this House will continue as an effective Second Chamber, and its very fine traditions will live on, to the great benefit of the nation.
9.24 p.m.
THE EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Molson, for allowing me to speak at this stage. I was unaware that the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, was not going to speak, and therefore missed my turn. I have listened with great interest to noble Lords speaking from all parts of the House, and being an hereditary Peer I should like to say that I am in agreement with most of the proposals in the White Paper. There has been, and still is, a growing conviction outside political circles that the Parliamentary system is breaking down under present conditions, and that we exist in a bureaucratic rather than a democratic State. It is, of course, an easy thing to smirk at Ministers for actions so inept as to appear ill-intentioned, but in present circumstances the miracle is not that they think badly, but that they think at all.
A House of Lords that represented only half its electorate at any one time, whose leaders were chosen from outside and whose Members were virtually forbidden to vote independently, might well stand in need of a radical reform. The changeover or evolution of the House of Lords into a true co-ordinating centre for the political body, which at present is controlled first by the Right and then by the Left, is another matter; and, prejudice apart, would seem to me to be a

981
feasible project. The aristocratic hereditary right to sit in the House of Lords (and I might say, in passing, that I have been doing so for the last 18 months), which seems to stick so much in the throats of some less fortunate and less civilised people, is not a bad thing since, like hereditary monarchy, it avoids automatically the jockeying and tampering inherent in any other system.
It is forgotten that when people think of England they do not think of sprawling congested cities, but of our national heritage of woods and parkland and settled villages that have been created by generations of landowners. This fact alone justifies the hereditary right, for a man's estate does not die with him, although estate duty is based on the envious assumption that it should. The succession of hereditary Peers ensures that a small number of very young men become eligible to sit in the House of Lords, and the number of younger Members might well be augmented by voluntary retirement, in favour of an heir, if a Peer wished to relinquish his seat for any reason.
In every generation the frustration of the young derives in part from a sense of non-participation. Despite current indications to the contrary, it might be beneficial if presidents of university debating societies were invited once a year in turn to address the House, concisely setting forth the views of their society. This would prove of unexpected value to both sides, for it is an unfortunate fact that many people form their basic ideas in their student days and retain them, virtually unchanged, right through their lives. This legacy of outdated undergraduate thinking is only too evident in many political utterances to-day.
In conclusion, my Lords, I will not touch any further on the proposals set out in the White Paper, which have been fully dealt with by previous speakers. I believe that the House of Lords, in its reformed and extended role, will preserve its great authority, its independence in outlook, and dispassionate debates. I therefore will give my support to this Motion and the Government.
9.29 p.m.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I rise to speak only very briefly because I notice that so many of those who have pre
982
viously addressed your Lordships have had great qualifications in welcoming this White Paper. I am one of those who do so without any qualification. It is as long ago as 1932 that I began to interest myself in the problem of the reform of this House. I was then a newly elected and very youthful Member of another place. A Committee of Conservative Members of both Houses was set up at that time to consider what could be done in the way of bringing about some change in the composition and powers of this House. I need hardly say that at that time, as the Committee was entirely Conservative and consisted largely of elder statesmen, there was a good deal of suggestion of increasing the powers of this House.
After some time I began to find myself something of a heretic, and I then formed certain ideas which I find reproduced accurately in this White Paper, some 36 years later. I came to the conclusion that it was neither necessary nor desirable for the Upper House to have any increase in powers. I thought that with a changed composition and the end of heredity and no built-in Conservative majority, this House would have such greatly increased influence that it would be able to exert the powers that it had it that time but which it never felt able to exert. I also came to the conclusion that it was most undesirable that Members of the Upper House should be subject to any kind of election, whether election—as was often suggested at that time—by the House of Commons, or by local authorities, or, as is now being advocated, by regions.
I felt that nomination for life would give to Members of this House a great degree of independence of the Government, independence of the Party Whips if they were in Opposition, and independence of the electorate, and I am bound to say that after 25 years in another place and sonic six or seven years in this place I have come to the conclusion that one enjoys a freedom and liberty in this House of saying exactly what one believes to be true, which one did not venture to indulge to the same extent when one knew that a General Election faced one in the future. Therefore I believe that the system of nomination for life is likely to ensure for this House a degree of independence from outside pressure

983
which will preserve for the future one of its outstanding virtues at the present time.
I am also a supporter of the two-tier system. The noble Baroness, Lady Asquith of Yarnbury, delighted us with her humour when she compared the two kinds of Peers of the future with the fourpenny and fivepenny stamps. We all enjoyed her humour, but I doubt whether it really had much bearing on the subject we are considering. I have had experience, in India as well as here, of the problem of finding suitable legislators. The difficulty confronting one is that in these days it is necessary to have professional legislators with considerable experience of procedure and the way in which a Legislature works, and who are able to give almost their whole time to making a Legislature work. At the same time, it is extremely desirable, especially in the case of an Upper Chamber, to be able to obtain the occasional attendance and advice of men of distinction and experience who are busy in the outside world and who are not able or willing to give up their time to constant attendance in a Legislature.
The only way in which I believe it is possible to reconcile the desirability of having those two entirely different kinds of legislators—the professional whole-timer who deals with the day-to-day business, and the distinguished people from outside who come to give their counsel on matters of high (and sometimes extremely specialised) import—is to have two different kinds of Peers. I certainly do not admit that the two-tier system means that one is in any way superior to the other: indeed, I am not sure that a great many people would not take the view that someone who held some high position in, shall we say, the City of London or in a trade union and could pay only occasional visits to the House, because his opinion was considered to be of such value, might be considered in some respects to he higher than an individual like myself, who for 25 years has applied himself fairly constantly to the daily work of this Palace.
I do not believe that this White Paper will bring about any revolutionary change. I should be opposed to it if I thought that it would. I do not believe that it will bring about any considerable or even
984
perhaps perceptible change in the atmosphere of your Lordships' House. What I believe it will do is to bring the system of recruitment to your Lordships' House more in line with the realities that have been developing ever since the Peerage Act was passed by a Conservative Government some four or five years ago.
Finally, I would say that on the one point at issue between those Leaders of the three Parties who collaborated so happily on this White Paper—that is to say, the matter of the timing of its coming into effect—I agree with the Government and not with my own Party:
"If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well
"It were done quickly:"
I can see no object whatsoever in waiting for another General Election. The Government's position is quite clear on this matter—though not on some others. They put forward this proposal at the last General Election and secured a majority in the House of Commons with this as one of the known features of their programme. So far as we are concerned, I can think of nothing more desirable than that a measure ensuring the survival and, as I hope, the increased influence if not increased powers of your Lordships, should be introduced in a Parliament when a Socialist Government enjoy a large majority in another place. My Lords, I believe that this is an opportunity for my noble friends to embrace, and I believe it is a great opportunity which may not come again: indeed, I am convinced that if it is not seized now, it will not come again.
9.38 p.m.
LORD POLTIMORE: My Lords, I have been prompted to join in this debate because I understand that in the debate on Rhodesia last June, of 44 hereditary Peers who took part, 13 had held their title for over 100 years, and four of them had forebears who had voted against Mr. Lloyd George's Budget in 1909—and I was one of the four. I remember that year of 1909 very well indeed. I was an undergraduate, and one day I conveyed my father across to the House. In those days there was a cab shelter in Parliament Square. The cabbies were all standing about watching the Peers arrive, some by carriage-and-pair and one or two in horseless carriages, and when they saw my

985
rather young, pink and cheery face, they were very amused. They thought I was a Peer and they were rather ribald and gave me a rather ironical cheer. I was naturally very amused, and when I came out again after depositing my father at the Peers' Entrance, I made a point of going back to them and having a talk. When they realised that I was the youngest of three sons of a penniless Peer, and in this life was very unlikely ever to cross the portals of your Lordships' House, they were very nice and kind. We had a most interesting talk, varying from Mr. Lloyd George's iniquitous Budget, as we thought then, to various diseases in cab horses, and when I came back and walked across the park I was convinced more than ever that all men on the turf and under the turf are equal.
I happened to be reading the other day a book on politics. In it was a sonnet written in 1830 at the time of the Reform Bill, and I should like to quote the very last verse:
"Ye butterflies whom kings create
Ye caterpillars of the State,
Know that your time is near.
This moral learn if ye can scan
God in creation made He man,
But never made a Peer."
I do not know whether that still stands good 138 years hence. Personally, I do not quite believe it.
I am afraid I do not believe in ancestors. I agree with the late Sir Thomas Lipton who always used to say that ancestors are not much good to anybody; they are like potatoes, they are mostly under the earth. But I am a great believer in heredity. After all, is not heredity in us all? Do we not all inherit everything we have? We were first born; we inherit various characteristics. We may inherit wealth—it is probably taken away by the Inland Revenue as soon as we get it. Our various characteristics may be good, they may be bad, they may be vicious, they may be vices, they may be virtues, they may be disabilities, they may be such terrible things as inherent disease or madness or cancer, but we are all subject to them. To top it all, we also inherit our father's name, and if we inherit our father's name surely we are entitled to inherit his title: and if we inherit the title surely we arc entitled to inherit the privilege. But if we
986
inherit the privilege we must also inherit the obligations, and that is the only suggestion I have to make to your Lordships; that is, that if Peers cannot or will not attend or will not take their duties seriously then they must give them up entirely and be struck off the Roll of the House.
It would be a great impertinence for me to make any suggestions as to how your Lordships should put your House in order. I was intending to go into the Lobby with the noble Marquess, but since I have been here to-day I have been so much struck with various speeches, especially that of the noble Lord, Lord Butler, that I am not certain what I am going to do. I hope that by tomorrow, having slept on it, I shill be able to make up my mind.
There is one further point I would make. There have been various remarks about the noble Lords on the Cross-Benches. I am on the Cross-Benches because I feel that I am old enough to know my own mind. Like a very famous Lord Chancellor in 1914, I can safely say that my spirit is on this side of the House, but I cannot really feel that I am entitled to sign my name on the dotted line; and I therefore am going to stay where I am, but I am always trying to vote according to my conscience and nothing else. I have nothing more to say. I can only pray that this edifice which has been built so well and for so long will find a secure foundation for the future.
9.46 p.m.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, what has surprised me a little during the course of this debate is that so little has been said of what is widespread comment outside. One sees it in the Press, and one is continually hearing it in conversation. It is this: that the growing power of the Executive should be checked. That is being said everywhere. It is against that background that I propose to make the few remarks that I desire to make to your Lordships.
When we look at this White Paper it does nothing to increase the checks; in fact it reduces them, certainly so far as subordinate legislation is concerned. It will enable a future Government to pass legislation through the last Session of a dying Parliament even though that

987
Government has entirely lost the confidence of the country. It also abolishes completely the hereditary principle. And all this as a result of a bargain between the Leaders of the two great political Parties without any reference to the electorate whatsoever. That, to my mind, is certainly not democracy. In the words of my noble friend Lord Jellicoe, the object of the exercise is to get a more efficient Parliament. But more efficient for what, my Lords? The way things are going, more efficient for carrying out the will of the Executive, and at a time when many people believe that its power has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished. I believe there is much more public concern about that aspect of the matter than the dislike of the Party opposite for the hereditary principle.
I have not been very long in your Lordships' House, but I was for a third of a century in the other place, and I loved it. I had a great respect for it, and still have; but for many years now changes have been creeping over the other place which sadden me, and I want to say something about them. When I first got into the House of Commons, quite a long time ago now, the tradition there was that one of the main functions of Parliament was to keep a check on the Executive, in the interests of the liberty of the subject. That was the tradition in which we were brought up; that was how our procedure was modelled; redress of grievance before Supply, and so on. But to-day that appears to be turned upside down, and it seems to me now that the main function of that institution is to streamline Government business.
I remember the old days when I was a young Parliamentary Private Secretary and used to sit in with my Minister and other Ministers, with the civil servants of the Department, and discussions used to take place on forthcoming legislation. How often did a civil servant say: "Minister, what is the House of Commons going to say to that?" And that question preoccupied their minds a good deal. I wonder whether to-day it preoccupies the minds of the bureaucracy to the same extent.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? Speak-
988
ing as a Minister I can say that it preoccupies their minds all the time.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, I am glad to hear it. All I can say is that I shall be most surprised if the thought, perhaps unspoken, does not pass through their minds that, if the worst comes to the worst, the payroll vote can be put into operation. I am coming to that, because I want to quote from The Times of yesterday, or the day before, which said:
"A senior member of the Labour Party said last night that the restiveness among Labour Back-Benchers is so widespread that the Government will have to call on the payroll vote if they want to beat the revolt when the vote is taken tomorrow night."
I look back to the old days, when I was a Whip. A statement of that sort, and the implication behind it, would have amounted almost to a call for a finding of breach of privilege. That that sort of thing can be said, and that people regard it as perfectly normal, is to my mind an indication of the lowering of the prestige of the House of Commons; and I find it most distressing.
My Lords, I come now to say something about the powers which can be exercised by the Whips. I was a Whip in the old days, and the biggest sanction we had between the wars was probably that if members "kicked over the traces" they would not get an invitation to the next Garden Party. Well, that was not much of a sacrifice: it might have caused them "wife trouble", but not much more. But to-day the sanctions of the Whips in the House of Commons are quite different, and, as The Times points out, they now can call on what is termed the "payroll vote". This diminishes the esteem in which the House of Commons is held in the country, and one gets the reflection of that in the lowering regard which is today held in the country for politicians of all sorts and of which we all know.
The remark was made to me the other day—I am not going to say who made it, because that would not be fair: "What is happening to-day is that every four or five years the country is electing a virtual dictatorship for the following four or five years". In his speech this afternoon my noble friend Lord Butler said that you can rely on the House of Commons to bring down a Government.

989
I only wish I could agree with him. The Chamberlain Government was brought down in 1940 by a vote in the House of Commons. But to-day, such are the pressures which can be brought by the Government I believe that that safeguard is virtually non-existent. That worries me, and I believe that it worries a great many people in the country to-day.
I do not want to keep your Lordships for long, and I therefore turn to another aspect which has been talked of in this debate, the question of the hereditary principle. Much has been said about the pity of doing away with that, "scrubbing it out" altogether, and I am not going to say more about that, except that I agree with everything that has been said in favour, not of the preservation of the whole thing but of some form of the hereditary principle. May I again quote The Times for just a moment? It says:
"The one anxiety which is felt about the abolition of the hereditary principle in the House of Lords is that it might seem to attack the hereditary principle in the case of the Monarchy."
Well, my Lords, I know that many people think that that anxiety is quite absurd. But I do not myself dismiss that anxiety, and I will tell your Lordships why. We have, through our history, deprived the Monarchy of power as part of the process that has gone on of checking the Executive, but we have not deprived the Monarchy of the right to be consulted, to warn, and to advise. The hereditary Peerage, however, is to be deprived of all this. After the present second-tier hereditary Peers, there will be no more; so the Peerage is to be deprived of something which is still left to the hereditary Monarchy.
I am certainly not a Republican—I do not suppose there is a Republican in this House. But there are Republicans in the country. There have been Republican movements in the past, and there may be again in the future. If I were a Republican I should rejoice at the precedent which is now being created destroying entirely the hereditary principle in the Peerage. They can then quote it as a precedent in support of the Republican movement to destroy the Monarchy, and that is the reason why I dislike it. Some people say that that fear is unfounded, but I can only offer
990
it to your Lordships as a perfectly genuine fear, and one which is shared.
The debate has been wide and long. The sum total of these proposals is to increase the power of the Executive at a time when those who cherish liberty should be devoting their thoughts to reducing the growth of authoritarianism. I am not against reform—far from it! But when I see the power of the House of Commons to curb the Executive decreasing all the time, as it is, I want to see reform which is directed to arresting the danger of this creeping power of authoritarianism. This White Paper does not do that. If it does anything, it does the reverse; it will put more power into the hands of the Executive. For that reason I shall vote against it in the Lobby to-morrow.
9.57 p.m.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, as one would expect, we have had a diversity of views in this debate, and at one stage I found myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, in the course of his vigorous speech. The point at which I found myself in agreement was when he said that to-night we were, in fact, discussing the abolition of the House of Lords and the creation of a new Second Chamber. There is, in a sense, a great deal of truth in that. Normally, under our Constitution, and in our political development over a very long period of time, forms have remained the same while the substance behind the forms has changed to conform with the realities of changing times. That is what is happening, I believe, in the changes which we are discussing this evening.
The House of Lords is an issue which gives rise to deep passions in the other place—indeed, it does also in a good many other places where political discussions take place—and it gives rise to deep passions because of the past traditions and the past position of your Lordships' House. In a number of speeches we have had a hankering after the hereditary principle and, if I may say so, perhaps some overstatement of the contribution which the House of Lords has made in the past in exercising a check upon Governments. I was most interested by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Grimston, and his references to the power of the Executive and the position

991
of the Whips. In the course of considering this debate my mind went back to two occasions in the past when there have been Conservative Governments in power, and when vitally important and controversial decisions and actions have been taken. My mind went back to the time of Munich and to the time of the Suez war. On both occasions in the field of foreign affairs actions were taken which many people in the country profoundly believe to have been unwise and immoral. I refreshed my memory on the contribution made by the House of Lords at that time, especially in view of the fact that, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Grimston, will agree, those were both occasions when, according to popular political comment, the Government Whips in the House of Commons were exceedingly active—using, I think, something a little more influential than threats to withhold an invitation to the Buckingham Palace Garden Party.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My noble Lords, is the noble Lord referring to the House of Commons to-night and the Government Whip operating there?
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, I am referring to the situation in another place on the occasion of the Munich Agreement and the Suez war, both occasions when Government Whips were exceedingly active. If noble Lords will refresh their memories by looking at the debates at that time, they will see that the House of Lords on both occasions showed singularly little inclination to give expression to criticism of the Government of the day. We did not have this independence of mind which some of those who have spoken of the hereditary principle would lead us to expect. We did not have the vigorous criticism of the Executive which many citizens, irrespective of Party, believed was justified.
Some of the criticisms which have been made of the proposals before us, some of the defences of existing systems, have reminded me, in their character and symptoms and in their phraseology, of the criticisms which were offered on the Reform Bill of 1832. For example, we have had the argument that change in the system will deprive this House of a
992
small number of talented young men. This was precisely the argument put forward, with a good deal of justification, for the pocket boroughs. One really cannot, by citing one feature of a system which has been in existence, justify maintaining all the remaining features which have become so repugnant to political opinion.
There are some people who take the cynical view that it is best for the House of Lords to be allowed to continue to be a greater and greater anachronism, with make-believe powers, because in those circumstances, although it may not do much good, it cannot do a great deal of harm. I do not share that view. I believe that every part of our Parliamentary institution should play a relevant and contemporary part. In fact, that issue has already been decided. The decision to inject the concept of Life Peerages meant that the idea of allowing the House of Lords to wither away had been rejected.
The case to-day for further reform is overwhelming, but in making those reforms I hope that we shall avoid, as many noble Lords on both sides have said, the danger of an excessive professionalism in your Lordships' House. We must have a body of working Peers. But the contribution which can be made by those who cannot be such regular attenders is a distinctive and real one. My own view is that more and more we shall find that the feature of our proceedings which becomes of greatest importance is what is described in the White Paper as the provision of a forum for full and free debate on matters of public interest. I hope that we shall treat with care the question of remuneration. There is nothing I want to say on this subject, since everything I wished to say has been said by my noble friend, Lord Sorensen, who said it far more adequately in a far more moving fashion that I should have achieved. He made a point of the greatest importance about the future effectiveness and dignity of this House.
But, my Lords, the most extraordinary of all the arguments that have been put forward in criticism of these proposals is that they would make your Lordships' House a House of nominees, a House

993
(somebody picked up this phrase) of lackeys, a House of puppets. If that is indeed a great danger, we are very far on the way to it already, because the facts and figures are on record; they can be found in the White Paper. Of the working House, of the regular attenders in this House, a majority, albeit a small majority, irrespective of Party, are Peers of first creation or Life Peers. We have already, then, in our normal proceedings, a majority of nominees. But is that in itself so dreadful a prospect? Is it really the case that hereditary succession alone can ensure integrity and independence?
It has been my privilege to be a Member of your Lordships' House for only just over 12 months, but in the course of that time two debates come to my mind, as they will come to the mind of every noble Lord—the debate on Stansted Airport and the Second Reading debate on the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill. I should have thought that those two debates alone, taking place within a period of 12 months, had demonstrated without a possibility of doubt the integrity and the independence of view of the Members who sit here as Peers of first creation or as Life Peers—those nominees of whom some in this House and some outside this House have sometimes tended to speak with scorn. Let those debates be read along with the debates on Munich and Suez, and let the judgment be made whether there has been greater integrity. greater independence and greater vigour in a House with a substantial injection of nominees than there was in a House with a larger hereditary element.
But, of course, the nomination of Members of this House by Prime Ministers—and it seems to be regarded by some noble Lords that there is something particularly dreadful about nomination by a Prime Minister—is not in itself a new thing. The power of Prime Ministers to create Members of this House, to add to the Peerage, has been liberally and vigorously used for at least seventy years. Again, the figures are in the White Paper. There were 590 Members of your Lordships' House in the year 1900. There are now over 1,000 eligible to sit in this House; and those additional creations are far from all having been made in the last five or six
994
years. It has already been pointed out that in fact such patronage as is proposed, the privilege of creating additional Peers, Members of your Lordships' House, will in effect be shared between the political Parties so far as the political nominees are concerned, leaving aside, of course, the very valuable element of Cross-Bench Peers. The power that Prime Ministers had in the past was an unqualified power, an unlimited power, to recommend to the Sovereign the creation of Peers; and everyone is aware of the occasions, not only when that power has been exercised liberally but when the threat has been made to use it on a very wide scale indeed.
So I believe, my Lords, that if we look at some of these issues in the perspective of our political history, we need not feel, any of us, that the proposals now made are quite so calamitous as some have suggested. For myself, I think that changes along the lines of those embodied in the White Paper open up for your Lordships' House a new period of usefulness, of dignity and of prestige. Perhaps, if I may say so, they will be accompanied by some improvement in the facilities with which we carry out our work in this building. I do not believe that there is another Upper House in the world which would put up with the facilities, or lack of facilities that we experience here. But I believe that we can, on the basis of this White Paper, envisage for your Lordships' House a position which is a vital one, recognised as valuable and relevant by politically interested citizens, and that we can begin a period in which this House will not be lower in prestige or public esteem but higher.
10.11 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I should not have very great difficulty in agreeing in general terms to the general principles of the Government Motion and of the White Paper which accompanies it. I have always sought to see reform of this House by limiting the numbers of Peers who would take effective part in its activities and deliberations, and I should have liked to see that major reform at the time, some ten years ago, when we were discussing and passing the Life Peerages Act. I had visualised a House of about 250 Members, half Life

995
Peers and half hereditary Peers. Now we have a variation of that, and perhaps in its initial stages it will not vary very much from the proportions I have mentioned if first creations are counted as hereditary Peers—and they, of course, are hereditary Peers. But when it comes to the details of the legislation which we shall no doubt be studying next year, I may in some respects have rather more difficulty in agreeing to the Government proposals.
To be very brief, there are three main criticisms, as I see it. The first is the reduction of the powers of this House to interfere with subsidiary legislation. I strongly support the suggestion of my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn who, at the opening of to-day's debate pleaded for reconsideration of this matter and made the suggestion that in respect of subsidiary legislation which was not of an urgent character your Lordships should have the same powers as you have in respect of Public Bills; that is, a delay of six months from the point of disagreement. Subsidiary legislation is something which all Governments have increasing recourse to nowadays; and it is precisely in that field where the most damage can be done, and quite unintentionally done, to the rights of individual citizens.
Much of this legislation is put forward on the arbitrary decision of one Minister or one senior civil servant, and it slips through Parliament perhaps without the consideration which it should have. There have been cases of this in the recent past and I am sure that there will be more in the future. It is very dangerous that another place should be allowed to adopt this form of legislation with increasing frequency without sufficient check upon it. One thing I feel quite sure about is that if the suggestion of my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn is not accepted—and even if it is—there would have to be at the same time a very important increase in the duties and powers of the Parliamentary Commissioner, the Ombudsman. Only in that way could we be sure that legislation of this nature does not go through to the detriment of private citizens.
The second criticism refers to the gradual abolition of the speaking and nonvoting element. It seems to me that this is not at all desirable. It will not increase
996
the effectiveness of your Lordships' House but will seriously diminish it. My first point is that it is quite unnecessary, and I would quote the White Paper itself as evidence of this. When referring to the two-tier system, it says at the end of paragraph 30, speaking of non-voting Peers:
"… but since they would not be entitled to vote, all connection between the hereditary principle and the power to vote would be severed immediately."
If that is the case, what is the necessity to abolish the hereditary element in the non-voting but speaking House? I think that this is a foolish thing to do, and not in the interests of the House.
One effect is that we shall be depriving ourselves of younger Peers. I know that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor rather "pooh-poohed" this idea. He gave us figures about the number of young Peers taking part—which certainly were not impressive—and went on to say, "Unless we consider people are young up to the age of 50." But as my noble friend Lord Salisbury neatly pointed out, of 155 Life Peers, or of those taking an active part in your Lordships' House, only three were under 50. It is the 40 age-group who will be sorely missed in your Lordships' House. It seems to me that this is a point which has not been sufficiently considered.
The second argument in respect of the hereditary element in the speaking but non-voting side of the House is that these Peers bring with them a knowledge of the various regions of the country which it would be difficult to replace. The third point is the opportunity they give to people who, like it or not, are brought up in a tradition of public service. Many Peers of hereditary title—indeed, I would say most of them—are unknown in public life until they come to your Lordships' House and get an opportunity to show their worth. There are many noble Lords on the Front Bench, certainly on this side of the House, who have made their names since they came here but who were not heard of before. How are we going to give an opportunity to such Peers? It is said that it is up to the political Parties to find the people to nominate, but it will not be easy if these Peers are not to be given an opportunity to show their worth. I know that it is said in the White Paper that men and

997
women of distinction will be nominated to the speaking side of the House. Whereas Peers in that position now might be content to continue in that position, because of the affection they feel for the House and their interest in its work, I doubt very much whether Peers who cannot vote will be willing to come to your Lordships' House. If this is the case, they will not replace the loss which will be felt by the phasing-out of the hereditary element in the speaking side.
My next criticism is on the differentiation between created hereditary Peers, first creations, and the older hereditary titles. In the White Paper such Peers have been lumped together with Life Peers, and I do not think this is very helpful. I would suggest that hereditary Peers of the first creation should not be given a prior claim, as they are in the present proposals, to a voting seat in your Lordships' House.
If your Lordships look at the figures, you will see that the Conservative and Liberal Parties and the Cross-Benchers may find themselves in serious difficulties. But not so with the Labour Party, because the majority are already Life Peers. If you consider the point particularly of the Cross-Benchers, 52 were attending regularly in the last Session, half of them created Peers and half Peers by succession. This means that there would only be four places for Peers by succession in the Cross-Benches, because the others would be pre-empted by those of the first creation. Is this very helpful?
I am not really making a plea for the older hereditary element, but for the greater efficiency and competence of your Lordships' House. I think it should be
998
possible, apart from Life Peers, for all the political Parties and the Cross-Benchers to choose among the hereditary element, including those of the first creation, those who have shown most aptitude for work in your Lordships' House. If all these 38 created Peers who attended regularly among Conservatives, most of whom I think in our case will be hereditary Peers and not Life Peers, and the 24 who attended less than 33 per cent. change their minds and propose to pay more regular visits to your Lordships' House, the possibility of the older hereditary element taking part will be almost entirely eliminated. Among that hereditary element there are many on our own Front Bench, and it would be a bad thing for your Lordships' House. I suggest that if this sort of detail is to be put into the Bill, all hereditary Peers, whether first creation or not, should go into the pool, so to speak, so that there is wider scope of choice.
These are the only comments that I wish to make. I think the good will that has been shown on all sides of the House is a good omen. I hope that we shall be able to build a House really effective. respected even more than it is now, and one which will retain its character and tradition. When the Bill comes forward, if a few of the suggestions which have been made from all sides are taken up, then I think we can look forward to a happy and useful future. I, for one, shall not regret the theoretical disappearance of the hereditary element, so long as I can feel sure that many among that hereditary element will have the chance to continue the public service which they have given in the past.
10.24 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, at this late hour my intervention will be only a brief one, and if my few remarks appear to be disjointed I hope that your Lordships will not think that I am being discourteous; I am simply trying to save time. Before I speak about the few points of which I have made a note, I should like to refer to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith. I entirely agree with what he said about our facilities. If this House in the future is to work efficiently many of the facilities that we have at the moment, which must be as poor as those of any Parliament in Europe, will have to be improved.
But having said that, I cannot go the whole way with the noble Lord about the Prime Minister's patronage, because, although it is true that many of us who enjoy the privilege of being Members of this House do so because the Prime Minister of the day made a recommendation to the Sovereign, the fact remains that it has not been normal for the Prime Minister to make such recommendations by the dozen and with a salary attached which will continue until the age of 72. That is a big difference which I do not think the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor fully made clear when he spoke at the opening of this debate.
The very few further remarks I wish to make are based on things I have noticed in the practical workings of Parliament during my time both in another place and in the four short years that I have been a Member here. In spite of much discouragement, I have held to the slender hope over the years of seeing some reform of this House in my time. I hope that, even if we cannot reach agreement on all that we should like to now, we shall not throw away the chances. Again, if I may refer to the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, it looks as if in another place only a few minutes ago the Government's Motion has been saved by the votes of the Party which he was so ready to criticise. If we cannot do all that we would do now, at least let us do what we can. Let us do something to make this Chamber not only more effective but known throughout the country for being more effective; and, further, make it a more appropriate partner for the other place, where long hours and ever-greater pressure still do not prevent it from skimping more and more
1000
work, which lowers the prestige of Parliament, not only in the eyes of all of us but also in the eyes of the nation.
All of us agree that, whatever change we may be considering for this House, it must mean a great difference and a reduction in the hereditary principle. But acceptable reforms to me also mean great care to preserve the best of our traditions, our unique freedom, our unique independence. I wonder whether there is any other assembly, any other Parliament in Europe, where a member can speak quite so freely and for quite so long as a Member can in your Lordships' House, and with less risk of being shut up either by his fellow Members or by the Government. That is a gift and a privilege which is important. not just to us but to the whole of Europe. In this care to preserve the best of our traditions I should much prefer to see a small hereditary element retained, rather than to see an abrupt end with, as it were, a downgrading of all but a selected few Peers by succession. In a minute I shall be coming back to the merits of this proposal.
I recognise that the subject we are debating arouses strong political feelings, stronger than I think they need be in 1968. considering the broad measure of agreement we have now reached about the changes. None the less, it is no good pretending that reform of the House of Lords is not a highly political subject. We have only to read this morning's newspapers to confirm that it is. In 1948. I believe it was political differences that prevented much from being done which ought to have been done and which the country would have liked to see done. In 1958 the Labour Party divided the House of Commons on the Second Reading of a Bill making possible the creation of Life Peers. In 1968 we see a great step forward towards agreement because these same Life Peers are now made the keystone of the proposed reforms. If there is joy over sinners that repent, none the less there is no reason for us to put more trust in the judgment of noble Lords opposite about the future. Their White Paper is indeed very wide, and because its implications are so wide we ought to consider them carefully. Yet, because of, he hour, I am going to limit my comments to four points, and make them as brief as I possibly can.

1001
First, I say straight out that I do not like the idea that all created Peers, below a certain age, should have the right to become members of a voting tier, whatever their interest in the general working of Parliament may have been demonstrated to be. I appreciate the value of eminent men coming here who cannot give a great deal of their time to this House; and it is natural, perhaps, that I, having come from the other place, should have certain prejudices because of my Parliamentary experience and because we are naturally encouraged to put in more time than others who come from other walks of life. None the less, I am going to ask this question. Why should those who do little more than come here on a rare day, make their speech and then, as often as not, go away, and who never put in a single hand's turn of work on a Committee stage of a Bill, be supposed to be better qualified to vote in Parliament than many Peers by succession who have given a large part of their lives to this House and to learning its ways, which are not all learned over a week-end?
My second point concerns something that appears towards the end of the White Paper. In paragraph 71 there is the familiar device of a committee. When thinking is not entirely clear it is customary to-day to fall back on a committee. If this particular committee should end up with too much power it would he highly objectionable, and if it should have none it would be quite unnecessary. Since this country is overburdened with committees we should all be chary of accepting even one more, and I would have thought that, if no one else in this country is to be allowed to manage his own affairs in his own way, at least Parliament should be allowed to do so.
My third point concerns the age of voting Members. The first aspect of this problem is that I do not like an arbitrary age limit. We do not all become old at the same time, and this is to be an age limit from which Ministers and Law Lords are to be favoured exceptions. From my experience even a junior Minister has a much heavier load to bear than a Back-Bench Member of either House of Parliament, and it seems totally illogical that he should now be presumed to be more able to bear that load into the 70s.
1002
The second aspect of the problem is that since few new creations of Peers wishing to accept the responsibility of voting are likely to be made before the age of 50 (and that is a fair assumption, in the light of our experience and of what has been said during the two days of this debate), and many may be older, our voting strength in the proposed House, as I see it, will mostly fall within the age bracket of 55 to 70. I do not think it is unfair to ask whether that is likely to command the confidence of the country, and particularly the confidence of the younger generation, who are continually besieging their professors in their university buildings.
My last comment concerns regional representation, and in this I include the different parts of England: I mean something wider than just Scotland and Wales. From my observations over the few years that I have been a Member of your Lordships' House I can say fairly that. except on days when Scottish business is being discussed, this House is much too heavily weighted by Londoners and Peers living in the home counties. I do not want to see a House where Members spend their time hunting constituency hares, as happens at the other end of the corridor. None the less, I think it important that we should be able to interpret the different points of view and feelings of the different regions of the United Kingdom, and this may well become more important in the years lying immediately ahead. The White Paper pays lip service to this but it does not do much more.
There has been no collusion between me and the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, but my final paragraph is a suggestion which I think might meet the last two of my comments or criticisms. None that I have noticed during the time I have been in this House has been better able to speak for the different regions of England, as well as for Scotland and Wales, than those in whose families it is a tradition of generations to serve in their counties as well as in Parliament. I should like to ask your Lordships why the hereditary Peers, acting as an electoral college, should not be empowered to elect, say, 50 of their number from different parts of the United Kingdom as voting Peers. This could be worked out on the basis o' the experience We have had in Scotland. If something of that sort could be embodied

1003
in the reformed Chamber, I believe that we should have a better Chamber than that which is sketched out in the White Paper.
10.35 p.m.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, the publicity recently given to the reform of your Lordships' House has not been an unmixed blessing for myself, because recently an acquaintance of my university days telephoned me to ask whether I could recall that in 1934. when he asked me if I would take my seat in your Lordships' House when my time came. I laid him a wager of £5 that there would not be a House of Lords then. Though I disclaim the wager I admit to the sentiment, and I think reform of your Lordships' House is long overdue. Over many years we have been portrayed by cartoonists as a gang of "chinless wonders" with very low I.Q.s and that sort of thing, and it is about time we were so altered as to have a slightly different public face.
I think the Government have done well in the White Paper, in view of the pressures that are upon them. I see three main pressures, the first one from the single-Chamber addicts; and they, to my mind, are out of touch with reality: only a country of the size of. say, New Zealand could in a single Chamber, under a democracy as we know it in these days, cope with the plethora of legislation. Secondly, there are the proponents of an elected Second Chamber. This is the form, on a regional basis, which I would theoretically favour. But an elected Chamber would have to have more powers, and in these days of envy, hatred and malice I cannot personally see a jealous "other place" allowing a Second Chamber any more powers than those envisaged in the White Paper. Thirdly, a Chamber had to be devised whereby the permanent Tory majority was obliterated, and that has already been achieved.
However, having said that, I think some word of consolation should be passed to the hereditary Peers, of whom I am one. Whether you like to call it sour grapes or not, some sort of consolation should be envisaged. I invite your Lordships to consider our history—everybody has
1004
a different view of history, so it is very easy to say that. First of all, we were ruled by an absolute monarchy and we went ahead compared with the rest of the world. Then, under a limited monarchy our standard of living compared favourably with our neighbours. Under a Cromwellian dictatorship the value of the pound did not slip all that amount. Then we were ruled by an aristocracy and created the biggest Empire the world has ever known. Under a limited aristocracy we retained it. And since about 1920, when we gave girls the vote at 21, we became a democracy. Need I say more?
I have been much amused by the recent correspondence in The Times on the subject of heredity. I think, generally speaking, heredity has taken a pretty tough caning. I thought the greatest compliment was in the letter that stated more or less that if we were bred for anything it was for the battlefield and the boudoir. The attributes which come with both of those pursuits—diplomacy, tactics, courage and good earthy realism—are surely of some use to the nation. On the latter point of realism, I was rather attracted to the newspaper columnist who, referring to the economic position in which we find ourselves and relating that to our being governed by so many dons, said that we should never have been in such a state financially if we had had a Government made up of
"rural aristocrats, semi-literate businessmen and old-fashioned trade unionists".
But, tongue in cheek aside, I think logically we should have an elected Senate, although, as I have explained, that is not practical. To do the job that has to be done at the least expense to the country, we should leave well alone. But the climate of political opinion rules that out. In the circumstances, I think the Government's White Paper has taken the best choice. However, to be honest, they should call their nominated Second Chamber a "Senate". In 1866 the Swedish House of Nobles was, to all intents and purposes, abolished. I do not think I could do better than end by quoting the farewell words of the last Marshal of State, Count Gustav Lagerbjelke:

1005
"Laws can be changed, rights can be abolished, but duties to the fatherland remain; and if those duties be well fulfilled it troubles the true nobility but little where their place is set in the community."
10.42 p.m.
LORD WEDGWOOD: My Lords, I came here yesterday with a prepared speech in my pocket and, after listening to the many excellent speeches from so many noble Lords, I went home last night and put my speech in the family archives. I had intended to withdraw my name and save the time of this House, but, as my opinion has hardened against these proposals and I may vote with the Not-Contents in the Division to-morrow, I think I should say as briefly as I can why I may do that.
On the abolition of the hereditary principle I have nothing to say, except that I regret its passing. But I accept that it is no longer a valid basis, by itself alone, for membership of this House in the future. However, I warmly support the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Denham, whose sensible and entertaining speech we all enjoyed so much yesterday, that Peers by succession should retain an opportunity of apprenticing themselves through the two-tier system. I agree with the advantages which he said would come from this arrangement, and it has received support from many noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Perth. It might agree with what the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, said, when he spoke about the need for some refreshing advice from young persons. I very much hope that the Government may look at this point again, objectively.
My main objections to these proposals for reform lie not in regard to composition but to powers, for I am convinced that without real powers this House will become no more than a standing committee reviewing legislation for which another place has insufficient time. Despite the apparent slight increase in time in the power to delay—that is, a full six months from the time of disagreement—there are several provisions in the White Paper which will speed up the whole process of contentious legislation through this House. They will considerably reduce the impact of your Lordships' future disapproval of any Bill,
1006
to such an extent that any legislation can be introduced in another place by a Government with only an adequate majority, in the knowledge that your Lordships' approval or disapproval is virtually irrelevant to its eventual passing into law, and that a matter of a few months, at worst, is the sole impediment to its becoming effective. This, I suggest, will make future discussion of legislation in this House of sc little importance that it will cease to have any significance and lead to an early abandonment of this Upper Chamber as part of the British Constitution, and therefore to one-Chamber rule.
But my principal misgiving on powers concerns subordinate legislation. It seems to rile, as the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, emphasised so strongly yesterday—and the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, and Lord Butler also spoke strongly about this this afternoon—that in this wide field there is a growing risk of increased Governmental use of powers under the Statutory Instruments Act and through Orders in Council. In view of much that has happened in recent years I cannot think that the emasculation of your Lordships' powers is good for the country. I do not think there has been any great abuse of the powers of this House in this respect, and I believe that it is in the national interest that the Upper Chamber should retain some teeth to deter—and I say "deter" rather than prevent"—a Government from proceeding with some Order regardless of soundly expressed sectional interests.
My Lords, in his speech this afternoon the noble Earl, Lord Longford, spoke of the influence of this House and of the greater influence it would have when reformed. With the greatest respect to the former Leader of this House, I greatly wonder whether the reduction of the powers of the House of Lords will in fact lead to an increase in its influence. I was taught in my formative years that politics was about power and the use of power, and I am still of that opinion. I realise that the powers of this House are a most serious and hotly contentious issue. But my voice is for adequate powers that mean something; powers which, wisely handled, can deter. If they do not exist, I do not believe that there

1007
can be justification for a Second Chamber in the Legislature, and I greatly doubt whether these proposals will preserve any weight behind your Lordships' decisions in the future.
Finally, I should like to say a brief word as a Cross-Bencher. The proposals are such, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, admitted this afternoon, that there may be an ultimate balance of voting power slenderly held by the Cross-Benchers. That places a great responsibility in the composition of these nonaligned Benches, and it is pertinent to ask by what method the Cross-Bench Peers would be selected as Lords of Parliament. In his forceful speech yesterday, the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, at the end of saying much with which I was in close agreement, rounded on the Cross-Benches in a way that I must say I found unnecessarily severe. There are some of my noble friends here who attend regularly, and I am sure that a reformed House would have every confidence in their impartial judgment.
Sometimes it is a good thing that we who sit here are free to vote as we think right, untrammelled by the cares of Party and political attitudes. However, there are also those among us on these Benches whose allegiance to one side of the House or the other is well known, and though they sit with us by reason of being Chairmen of national bodies, the selection of Lords of Parliament to sit in this part of the House has always seemed to me to be a remarkably difficult proposition. I would think it logical, as does the noble Baroness, Lady Swanborough, that in the reformed House Cross-Benchers should be nominated only from among those who bear no allegiance to a Party, for I fear that the numbers of those who are truly non-aligned who may sit on these Benches in the future may well be reduced through Party pressures.
In conclusion, and because of my real fears on the drastic reduction of the powers of this House, I would say that I am likely to vote against the Motion tomorrow. I am still open to persuasion, but unless 1 am convinced by what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, may say in his winding-up speech to-morrow, that
1008
these proposals are a better alternative than maintaining the status quo, and am given some real indication that there is a hope of improving on these present terms, I shall exercise my vote against the proposals. I am not against change, but I am against change for the sake of change unless it is a change for the better.
10.51 p.m.
LORD REDESDALE: My Lords, I seldom address your Lordships' Chamber but when I do I at least have one advantage: I speak very briefly and, I hope, to the point. I will not take up your time to-night. In fact, I should be down in five minutes, which will be a great relief to all present. First, I should like to say that this shows no disrespect to the House but I hope is just a matter of relief to those who follow me.
Basically I agree with the White Paper in broad terms. This is a slight "Irishism" because I feel that you either support it entirely, in which case you vote for it, or you disagree with it. However, I suppose, on reflection, one can support a White Paper in broad terms. The climate of this country does not support the hereditary principle; most of us accept this. The House must now have popular support if it is to have executive authority. This authority and power is essential to provide the constitutional safeguard which, in my opinion, should be the most important role of this Chamber. There are, of course, many other roles which this House can carry out, and carry out supremely well, but I should like to concentrate on the constitutional safeguard aspect. Provided this House has the authority given it by popular support, it could provide a constitutional safeguard, which I would interpret a being the means of ensuring that the true will of the people of this country is interpreted in legislation.
To the man in the street, Parliament now leaves a lot to be desired. This has been accepted by speakers both in this House and in another place over the last two days. In fact, democracy appears to be constantly being weakened owing to the increase in statutory powers, removal of powers from local authorities and, ironically, the proposed contraction in the delaying powers of this House. The voter has little choice and, having cast his vote, is committed for the term

1009
of Parliament, whether the Government stick to their election pledges or flout them. Thus a Government can rule without a mandate. The decrease in the reputation of Parliament is caused by the increasing feeling of helplessness in the face of the power of "They". The suggestion I put forward would not have the support of the dedicated Parliamentarian, and is something that would come under the. aegis probably of the Constitutional Commission. However, if I may venture to continue, it would bring back a degree of democracy, which I feel is very necessary.
As I have said, I feel the six month delaying power is of no real value. Because the proposed constitution of this House under the White Paper would be entirely nominated, it would be hard to lay down any hard and fast rule at the moment. I feel that this House, instead of possessing delaying powers should have the right to refer any really important matter, any matter which would seriously divide the country, to a referendum. I appreciate that most Parliamentarians would feel chary of ever supporting something of that nature. However, in view of the amount of student unrest and other agitation in this country (and votes at 18 is only one concession, which may be too little, too late), this would give to the people of this country the right actually to participate.
I wish to make only one further point. The composition of this House must take into account those people who can judge the "feel" of the country. I submit that some of the younger Members of this House may perhaps be slightly more in touch. Youth is a relative matter. One can be young at 72 and old at 25. To a teenager, somebody of 25 or 30 is regarded as fast approaching senility. The noble Lord, the Leader of the House, in his interjection at the beginning of yesterday's debate said that he could see only two Members under 40. Admittedly, the noble Lord came back and said that they were hiding behind the Bar—I was not sure to which Bar he was referring. However, the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, and I checked and we found that present in the Chamber at the time were 20 noble Lords under the age of 40 (who might be described as relatively young). We then went on to check how many noble Lords there were under 40. There
1010
are in fact 101; they are of course all hereditary. Therefore, with 20 o these noble Lords present, a turnout of 20 per cent. is not too bad a figure. Those under 40 who have to work, or certainly a good number of them, cannot put in the attendances. I appreciate, therefore, that in the recomposition of this House those under 40 would find it hard to put in the requisite number of attendances, and on that basis I certainly should be what has been referred to as a "fourpenny" rather than a "five-penny" Lord.
Rather than delay your Lordships any longer, I will end by saying that I feel it is essential that the participation of the ordinary man in the street in the Government of this country should be increased, so that he at least feels that he has participation. Secondly, those who are in this House in future must be in touch. Consequently, I feel that there is a case for some of the younger Members to be included among the voting Peers.
10.58 p.m.
LORD SWANSEA: My Lords, it is very late; this has been an extremely long debate, and I shall try not to detain you for very long. I should like to apologise in advance lest, unwittingly, I go over ground which has already been covered by more able speakers than myself. If I were a curate, and if this White Paper were put before me in the form of a boiled egg, I should be bound to admit that it was excellent in parts. Some parts of it I should like to keep well upwind of.
Most of us would agree that some measure of reform is necessary in this House; indeed, there are some who go so far as to say that it is overdue. The proposals which the Government have put before us are very far reaching, and I am bound to wonder, along, I am sure, with a great many of your Lordships, whether these reforms are necessary at this moment. Why is there such a hurry to push legislation through? Why is it so urgent that it cannot wait until the electorate of the country have had an opportunity to express its views? I cannot myself see the urgency, and I am tempted to wonder whether perhaps it is being put forward as a smokescreen for other purposes.

1011
Some of these proposals are, I think, fair enough; and the fact that all the existing hereditary Peers would in the first instance be free to sit and speak, at least as non-voting Members of this House, would ensure some continuity. But, of course, in due time those hereditary Peers would be, as it were, phased-out: they would no longer have the automatic right to sit and speak. I have been trying to look into the future a little, when the number of hereditary Peers sitting in this House as of right will become smaller and smaller and when more and more Life Peers will have to be appointed to fill their places. It is going to be a well-nigh impossible task to choose who are to be the new, voting "sheep" and who are to be the new, non-voting "goats". In years to come, I think this will be a very serious question for the Government of the day and for the Leaders of the other Parties, and it is going to be very hard, I think, for them to draw a distinction between the "sheep" and the "goats".
There is a very grave danger that in due time this House may become a sort of pensioning-off ground for Members of Parliament, trade unionists, county councillors, company directors, and anybody else you like to think of, who have served their time and are pensioned off here. The average age of Members of this House will go up and up, and there will be a grave need, as my noble friend who spoke before me said, for young blood. I can think of no other system except the hereditary system that will enable this House to count young men among its Members. The young men who sit on these Benches now, who have made and are still making a real contribution to the government of this country, have a worthwhile point of view to put and I believe that many of us would like to see that continue. I hope that when the Government introduce their Bill they may reconsider this point and perhaps allow Peers by succession to continue to sit and to speak as non-voting Members. Is it too much to hope for, I wonder?
The next question I want to deal with concerns the powers of the House. If this House is to be reformed, if it is
1012
accepted that it is necessary to reform it to make it a more representative, a more democratic and, by implication, a more efficient body, why in the name of sanity talk about reducing its powers? It just does not make sense. This House has a very important function to perform in reviewing and revising legislation. Naturally, it must keep a subordinate position to that of the elected Chamber. Nevertheless, it still has a very important function to perform. I think that few of us would wish to be Members of what would simply be—or could simply be—"a hot air" factory, with no powers at all.
I am glad to see that there are proposals to include some Peers who will be able to speak for the different regions of these Islands. I regard that as extremely important, because so many of your Lordships live or work in or near London and comparatively few can speak with any real authority on the more remote regions of the country. Naturally, it would be insincere of me to affect to be disinterested. To parody a once-popular song, "This old House" has served Parliament and the country very well for many hundreds of years. It is a curious vestigial remnant of the feudal system: it is illogical and undemocratic, but few can deny that it works—although it creaks a bit here and there.
My Lords, some people say that a Second Chamber should be abolished altogether. But that, I am sure, is a very mistaken view, because a Second Chamber is essential for the proper government of a country of this size. Some people would like a very radical reform, to make this House completely elected, completely representative, in one way or another—which would amount to jacking-up the Woolsack complete with its noble and learned incumbent and running a new House in under it. I do not think that any of us would like to see that. What we should have if the Government proposals go through will be a gradual reconstitution of the House. Let us hope that it will be a change for the better. I myself hope very much that this House will not have any less powers than it has now because it would be a complete farce if all its teeth were drawn.

1013
I should like now to go on record as supporting this Government White Paper in principle. But there are many aspects of it about which I have great misgivings. I hope that before the Government introduce their Bill they will take heed of what has been said in this House and in the other place and will have some regard to the views that have been expressed. My Lords, having started by talking about eggs, I will finish by talking about eggs. Perhaps from this dodo's egg, we may yet see a phœnix arise.
11.9 p.m.
LORD SOPER: My Lords, I, too, must apologise for my non-appearance for the general substance of this debate. I have been, as often I am, on ecclesiastical business which has required my presence elsewhere; but I have endeavoured to cull what information I can from one or two recent ecclesiastical occasions (and not a few occasions in Hyde Park) and should like to spend a little time in hanging what I have to say on the pegs of various impressions I have gained from those two fora. The singular thing is that both among the crowds in Hyde Park and the select groups of Methodists there is considerable congruity. I must say that there does not seem to be great deal of violent enthusiasm for the White Paper. This may be because there has been a general impression that this House has acquitted itself with considerable success and has been demonstrating an increased usefulness, without the kind of patronage which has been said in some quarters to exist.
This does not in any way invalidate the second comment, which is equally unanimous: that the hereditary principle is intolerable. There can be no doubt about this. And from every standard of common sense and moral principle, it would seem to me that the White Paper is entirely right and should commend itself to all of us. The preservation of the hereditary principle is strictly intolerable.
The question of the sort of patronage that will ensue if not clear in the minds of many people. Though I am assured, reading Hansard, that there is no real danger that patronage will be increasingly in the hands of one or two people, I am sure that many could be much influenced by information that would give
1014
them the assurance that there is a close and careful discipline and a wide and ample opportunity for views to be expressed and decisions to be made in a context which is wider than that of the competence or opinion of one or two people. If this is so, I, for one, am satisfied. But it is not clear from the White Paper and certainly it is not clear to many people who have opinions on these matters. With regard to the general behaviour pattern of the reformed House, there are minor questions which are still in dubiety, but in general it appears to many people and to me to be a workable scheme. If it is an interim scheme, as I dare say it may well be, that does not in any way invalidate its usefulness. Indeed, that is one of the reasons why it should commend itself to your Lordships.
What has exercised a great many people is a matter to which perhaps little attention has been paid in this debate. There is a widespread feeling among the less religious, and even among the hardened churchgoers, that one of the things which ought to be changed is the title. I just report to your Lordships that this exacerbates more feeling than any other issue. Whether this has a superficial attractiveness to noble Lords or not, it has some initial attractiveness to me. Yet the more I think about it, the more complicated the issue becomes. After all, I have been revered, technically and honourably, for some forty years, and therefore it has been a comedown for me, in joining your Lordships' House, to become just "My Lord". The principle of reverence is not sufficient in itself but has to be accompanied by "most reverend", the superlative, or "very reverend", the comparative, and "right reverend"—to say nothing of fairly or rather reverend, which would cover the generality of us all—in order to make it clear that the word means something. The fact remains that when we think of these titles, they probably become more attractive when they lose their moral and intellectual content. After all, if we "worship" mayors we should not trouble too much about calling each other "My Lord". I am perfectly willing that the title should disappear; and I must say that generally in Hyde Park I am not called "My Lord".

1015
These are matters which have attracted the attention of people outside your Lordships' House, and I would conclude this brief part of what I have to say by the general comment that it seems to them to be a workable scheme that ought to be tried; that if it has to be altered later on, well and good, but let us get on with it as quickly as possible.
The other point that I want to make, quite briefly, is this. I think I am the second priest in Holy Orders, or as we say "Methodist in good full connection", who has taken part in your Lordships' House in this debate. If I am unfair to my noble friend Lord Sorensen, if he is still in good connection, I apologise to him, and I am sure he will forgive me. But that would only make me third in the running, anyhow. I would entirely and with confidence endorse all that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester had to say about the desirability of increasing the religious, the theological, but not necessarily the theocratic element in your Lordships' House.
This poses a number of quite practical questions. For good or ill, Bishops are there for a very long time, and in fact can be there almost in temporal perpetuity. But with Methodist Presidents we take the precaution of only letting them loose for one year, and therefore it would be impossible to copy the Mussolini principle—the one principle which it seems to me commends his regime—the appointment on a corporative basis of those who represent particular grades and institutions in society. It would be impossible to do that in regard to ecclesiastical representation, because you would be faced with the fact that you would be putting a vast number of entirely desirable colleagues into positions of continuity in your Lordships' House, when they would in fact only enjoy their spiritual power for a very short time.
It seems to me, so far as I am concerned, that this must necessarily include not only our friends of the Roman Catholic Church, but also our friends of the Jewish faith; and if the Buddhists proliferate, maybe some Buddhist representative as well in time to come, to say nothing of Islam. But what at the
1016
moment is obvious to me is that we can seek to find such people as can be, to a certain extent, representative of the faith they hold to be put into your Lordships' House on a personal basis. I cannot think that it would be possible to put them on a corporative basis; and though I have personally toyed with the idea of those who would be elected to serve because they represented responsible institutions in the community, I am sure on reflection that it would be far better to proceed on a personal basis and leave it at that.
If your Lordships are left in any doubt as to the desirability of change, I would commend you to what has been to me, and I am sure to your Lordships, the overwhelming sense that some kind of change is required, and that things as they are cannot he allowed to continue as they are. If that is so, then I think an objective reading of the White Paper yields one quite simple result: that here is a proposal, or a series of proposals, which may need amending in Committee when the Bill is produced, but which in substance represents a way forward, engenders hope and gives an earnest of much better things to come. For that reason, I support the White Paper.
11.19 p.m.
VISCOUNT LONG: My Lords, the first thing I want to say is that I should not have liked to be a member of the Committee which produced the White Paper that we are debating this evening. I feel that great credit is due to those from the Right and the Left Wing of politics who have compromised in this respect. I think it was a very difficult situation. The first thing I noticed when I looked at the White Paper was that the Government say that both Houses have need of each other. I hope that, when this reform has gone through, after the debate this evening, and when the Bill has gone through the two Houses, the Commons and the Lords will be able to talk to each other again. As I see it, there is a need for both Houses. The world looks at the British politician and the world looks at the Parliament of this country, and I am sure that if we can come together again and compromise and get reform through we shall continue to perform a great service for the public of this country and for the world.

1017
In the last Session a tremendous amount of work went through this House. I have been a Member of this House for only approximately 18 to 19 months. But in my view there can be no doubt that the hereditary Peers plus the Life Peers did great service in performing the mammoth task of getting through the work which was put before them. But I feel that there is room for change: a change to bring new blood into this House to help the strains that go on with such a mammoth task. Last summer we dealt with many Bills, in addition to the tremendous Transport Bill. To take such a strain we could have new life blood in this House, and it would probably make the task less difficult for us.
I also feel the difficulty of the hereditary system as it stands to-day. I remember well 18 or 19 months ago when I inherited the title from my noble father. I suddenly found myself an hereditary Peer with a seat here and with the responsibilities of a job and the responsibilities of one's country which entailed coming to your Lordships' House. I also knew the difficulty concerning one's pocket. The difficulty was to balance giving one's full time or only part time to one's job with giving one's full time to this House for four guineas a day. One could not possibly do the latter.
This afternoon, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd (I think it was), said that times had changed and that the estates had gone. My estate went in 1920 and there was nothing left of the till. Therefore, how can an hereditary Peer go on giving absolutely 100 per cent. loyal service to this House when in fact he is committed to earning his living in his job? I am in industry, in sales. I have been in sales for 12 years. I started in the mill. One cannot possibly divide one's loyalties, as I see it, between the responsibility towards one's country and the responsibility towards one's job. It is impossible. I do not see that it can be done. Having been in industry, I have seen a certain amount of change, and reform or progress is nothing new to me. I have been working on machines, five cutters in the mill, when somebody has come along, a foreman or manager, and wanted a machine moved. It has been working perfectly well up to that moment in that position. One cannot
1018
see the reason why it has to be moved, but it is moved. Patience and time will tell even with this House, but progress and change would do good. I am certain of this.
My Lords, I am probably doing myself out of a job in this House, but if it is for the benefit of the country then that must be considered. We are living with many more millions of people in this country, and with a vast industrial revolution going on. We need to keep up with everything, and we in this great Chamber, which has stood for so many years, producing great debates and an enormous amount of help for the public and the world, cannot stand still and hope that the world will go on. it cannot be done. We must think of the future. I feel that to become a Life Peer would be a de-grading. To come to this House 100 per cent. of one's time—and I stress that, because 331 per cent. is nonsense—one must be able to put one's full time into the job. I find this a difficult and sad moment for a hereditary Peer. It is hard to look to the future and say, "I have a son who is not going to inherit this great Seat which his father, his grandfather and his great grandfather have held before him", but if it is good for the country then let us do it.
Not being a technical Parliamentarian and not having been here long enough, I cannot see that all the recommendations in the White Paper will work; but the experts tell me that they will and I am prepared to accept their word to a certain extent. However, I think it is quite wrong to set 72 years of age as the retirement age from this House. I am only a junior Member, but in my view people of 72 are still young and full of wisdom and experience. This House has been brought up to its present standard by the older generation. I should loathe to see many noble Lords here disappear at the stroke of a pen, and I believe that bringing in the number that is required might well result in the standard of this House going down. In America, and indeed all over the world, this House is looked upon as a great debating Chamber, and I beg your Lordships not to let that standard fall. Above all, we should be wary of making 72 the age of retirement. I do not believe it

1019
should be anywhere near that; wisdom and experience cannot be bought.
Finally, may I say that during the last year when I have been in the House I have been worried by the Party political battle that has been going on. In my view it is wrong to have Party politics in this House, and I hope that when all this is arranged the arguments can be put to one side and this House can be saved from Party politics. Then we can get on with the job which is set before us. Do not let us lower our sights by descending to Party politics.
11.29 p.m.
THE EARL OF LINDSEY AND ABINGDON: My Lords, from a personaI point of view the most important observation I have made to date, since I became a Member of your Lordships' House, is that I am a glutton for punishment so far as time is concerned. On the few occasions that I have ventured to express my views I seem to have chosen a debate such as that on Rhodesia, or Stansted, and I end up swaying on my feet in the early hours of the morning speaking on this White Paper.
As the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, pointed out, it has been a tradition of this House not to repeat what has already been said. Being the fifty-fifth speaker on the second day of this debate I find it is impossible to follow this tradition. However, I should like to make one or two observations on the White Paper. Having read both sections—that is to say, the background to reform and the proposals for reform—my immediate reaction was that it was rubbish, and if that is what they call "reform" they should abolish the whole thing and stop wasting important people's time. It was not reactionary enough, so far as I was concerned.
Realising that a fully elected Upper Chamber would not be acceptable to Members of another place, I would ask, why not have a two-tier system consisting of half the Members being elected on a regional representative basis, and not necessarily members of the Peerage, and the other half nominated? This
1020
would do away, to some extent, with the Prime Minister's patronage, objection to which has been voiced in both Houses of Parliament. It was not until I read Appendix I of the White Paper that my views began to change. All previous attempts at reform have failed, and this one comes nearest to an acceptable formula in the second half of the 20th century. Both the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and my noble friend Lord Jellicoe further convinced me that this was an opportunity not to be thrown away. However, I still have not been converted by the arguments that nomination will not increase patronage, and wonder whether this is not just another stepping-stone to a further reform that will end in one-Chamber government, which would be intolerable to the Constitution of this country.
Finally, I should like to quote the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who said, "What is the hurry?" As an hereditary Peer, I find it unacceptable to receive a Writ of Summons and take an oath for the duration of a Parliament and then three-quarters of the way through that period be told, "You are out, as far as voting is concerned". Not that that particularly worries me, because in my view a substitute vote at a General Election would have far more effect than any vote I have at the present moment in this House. I do not believe that this House as at present constituted will embarrass the present Government during its last years of office. With those reservations, my inclination is to support the Government's proposals.
11.32 p.m.
LORD CACCIA: My Lords, as a Life Peer of recent creation, I shall detain your Lordships for only a few minutes and speak largely from the point of view of a diplomatist with some experience of Second Chambers in other countries as well as our own. As an historical aside, I hope also that it may not be thought altogether out of place for me to mention that this is not the first time that my own family have been involved in debate, dispute and decision concerning the hereditary principle and political power. In the Florentine Republic at the end of the 13th century the so-called

1021
"Ordinances of Justices" of 1293 made hereditary title a bar to participation in any aspects of politics. True, this was later circumvented and in the end set aside; yet this historic example illustrates that the problem of the extent to which political power shall be hereditary is not confined to this country or this age. Over many centuries measures have been adopted elsewhere to sever all such links.
Of course, as a Life Peer I am not now directly involved in this aspect of the White Paper's proposals, but may I just say that, for my own part, I have no objection of principle in all times and places to an hereditary Peerage with some measure of political power. On the contrary, the question is: what time, what place? And here and now my own view is that this is not acceptable in England. It may not always remain so, and in the past these phases have come and gone, in Florence and elsewhere. Indeed, recent discoveries in the field of genetics may even in coming centuries lead to a demand that none should participate in a Second Chamber unless they have by heredity an approved D.N.A. rating. But whatever lies ahead, I myself would not quarrel with those who argue that the present climate of public opinion in this country will not permit any measure of political power to an hereditary Second Chamber in Westminster.
The question then arises: what degree of power will be allowed here and now to any such Second Chamber? The existing state of this House, with all its unquestioned tolerance, patience, wisdom, which must impress any newcomer, is, with respect, at the same time unimpressive, whether judged by its own remaining capabilities or by comparison with the effectiveness of Second Chambers in other countries. So far as legislation is concerned, we have some residual constitutional powers which we hesitate to use, and some debating possibilities which are usually outmatched by a letter to The Times or a television appearance, if impact on Government or people is sought. Why then have a Second Chamber at all? For myself, I would not go so far as the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, earlier to-day. I think the arguments deployed by other noble Lords are conclusive against single-Chamber government here, or, from my experience
1022
elsewhere, in any other free society of similar complexity. We have tried it once for a while under Cromwell, and to my book we should not do so again, any more than we should dabble in any form of dictatorship, Cromwellian or otherwise.
So I see the choice as between this Chamber with its present powers, or a Chamber based on the White Paper. Of the two I prefer the latter, with all its limitations, because such a Chamber would presumably be ready to use its powers, and not like the present, shy to show its few remaining teet1-. For myself, I should hope that a wise exercise of such powers might induce Governments and people later to extend the authority of the Second Chamber. I should also hope that the most controversial aspect of the present proposals—that is, nomination by the Prime Minister of the day—would be looked at again in due course. A development of regionalism might enable a Second Chamber to be based, like the Senate of the United States, on an elective principle and for much longer terms than the House of Commons. I have heard various things said in disparagement of the Senate of the United States, and I should like here to record my own view: that as an informed body with power, it exercises that power in that vast American Continent with skill and persistence in the interests of that country.
That and other such proposals may well be thought worthy of consideration later. But if we wait for them nothing will be done, and we shall just teeter on as we are, with hope deferred. I could not be for that; and, to cut this story short, I prefer these proposals now to the chance of something better at a later date, and if it comes to a Division I shall vote for this Motion.
11.40 p.m.
LORD SANDYS: My Lords, we are into the last lap, and before the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, moves the adjournment of the debate I shall not detain your Lordships for more than a few minutes. But I feel that it is incumbent upon me, as I think the fifty-seventh speaker in the debate and the last speaker from this side of the House, to say something about the two most interesting and

1023
extremely distinguished maiden speeches—
LORD MOTTISTONE: Would the noble Lord forgive me? Perhaps he is not aware that I am going to speak after him.
LORD SANDYS: My Lords, to continue, with the correction that I shall not be the last one to speak from these Benches, I should like to say this of the two most distinguished maiden speeches this afternoon. Especially for the younger element in your Lordships' House, the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, was extraordinarily interesting. Your Lordships may be aware that the noble Earl's father's name is recorded on the Roll of Honour in the Royal Gallery. He was posthumously awarded the highest award for gallantry awarded by the Sovereign for his action in the Western Desert. I feel sure that the whole House takes enormous pride in welcoming his son to your Lordships' House.
I should also like to say this in regard to the noble Viscount, Lord Long. whose late father I used to sit next to on the Back Benches. He was no less than the eighty-sixth member of his family to represent either a borough or division or some part of the nation in Parliament. This, I think, is probably a record, taking together representation in both Chambers. This really is an astonishing record of service in Parliament, and I commend it to your Lordships as an example of public service over the centuries and, to a wide extent, a justification for some degree of currency being given to the hereditary principle.
I feel that we owe a great debt of gratitude to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his patience in listening to so much of this debate and, further, for listening to my trifling remarks as the last but one speaker from these Benches. Just to emphasise the extraordinarily difficult task of the Chairman of the Committee, I should like to quote not from this White Paper, not from the 1948 White Paper, but from the 1918 White Paper, the Preamble to which starts off with the words, "Dear Prime Minister". In that Preamble Lord Bryce, who was of course the Chairman of the second Chamber Conference referred to in Command Paper 9038 pre-
1024
sented in April, 1918—incidentally, priced at 3d.; our present one is priced at 3s. 6d.—said this:
"The problems we had to deal with presented difficulties which can hardly be appreciated except by those who have steadily applied themselves to a prolonged study of the issues involved".
The issues involved were so multifarious, so deep and so difficult that they had to publish as Part II a minority Report, in which the recommendations of a minority of the Conference, consisting of two noble Lords, Lord Loreburn and Lord Sydenham, and one Member of the House of Commons, a Mr. Scanlon—that name has a familiar ring about it !—differed from the majority.
But, my Lords, the Bryce Report was published 13 years before I was born, and I prefer to seek more contemporary sources of information to set beside the White Paper. I would commend most heartily to your Lordships the views of the late Lord Morrison of Lambeth, whose vast experience in public affairs and in Ministerial high office in six Governments I feel bears weighty consideration in this matter. And not only weight, because his very human approach to so many subjects, and his insight in so many matters, was a subject of great delight to all of us who knew him and appreciated the love and the great affection in which he held this House, although he came here, we all know, with great reluctance.
I would quote from Lord Morrison's book, Government and Parliament, the second edition, page 194, line 9, where he says:
"The fact that the House of Lords has many irrational features is not, in itself, fatal in British eyes for we have a capacity for making the irrational work, and if a thing works. we tend to like it, or at any rate to put up with it."
Further down the same page he said:
"The very irrationality of the composition of the House of Lords and its quaintness are safeguards for our modern British democracy."
My Lords, not only do I heartily concur with those views, but most especially I concur with the view of my noble friend Lord Denham, in his most interesting speech yesterday, in which he asked the question:
"Is a seat in this House to be regarded as a reward for services rendered, or as an opportunity for services to come?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 19th November. 1968, col. 700.]

1025
My Lords, I stand before your Lordships as an apprentice in the first phase of the development of what my noble friend took to be the life in your Lordships' House of a hereditary Peer. I have been here for six years, and previous to that I exercised the privilege, known only to hereditary Members, to sit on the steps of the Throne, which I did for a period of 11 years.
I also commend to your Lordships the views that we have heard to-day from my noble friend Lord Mansfield. Lord Mansfield had, and has, a very much tighter grasp of the subject than I. When I read in Her Majesty's gracious Speech, delivered on October 30 last year, that your Lordships' House was to be revised and the hereditary element eliminated, I said to myself: "This is not language which is used in Western Europe; it is the language used on the far side of the Iron Curtain". This is language of liquidation, the liquidation of reactionary elements, and I feel that it is not a method by which one should introduce a major reform to the Electorate. It is the first plank in what I consider to be a road of suspicion on which I tread. I tread this suspicious road because I believe that part of the principles which have guided Her Majesty's Government has been the dislike of the hereditary element. I have to say this because I believe it to be true.
I feel that the White Paper provides, in effect, for the dismantling of the whole hereditary principle; the dismantling of what my noble friend Lord Denham, described as the "bridge". He was describing Isaac Newton's bridge, but to continue his argument I would describe the bridge in a more metaphoric form, the bridge which each of us represents as trustees for the people of this country—the trusteeship which we, the current generation, hold for the successive generations. I cannot believe, even at this late hour, that this matter should be left in this situation. I look forward tomorrow to the final speeches, most especially to those by the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the House. I greatly fear that I shall not be able to support the Government, but I await with interest tomorrow's debate.
11.50 p.m.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships long. I started this debate firmly convinced that the White Paper was good in all its respects. I have sat through as much of the debate as I can and have now come to the conclusion—I came to it late last night—that in its present form the White Paper will not create a Chamber which will give the country the best service in the years to come. That sounds rather blunt, but we are galloping. The hereditary Peers in some form or another have been in existence for some 1,200 years in the Legislature of this country, and the Life Peers have been in existence for only ten years.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord and commend to him Mr. Enoch Powell's book? He will find that he is not entirely right.
LoRD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, although I take with great respect. those remarks from the Leader of the House, I hesitate to take his advice. Whatever it may he, we are going quickly. We have in the last ten years had life Peers, and we are now to find the hereditary Peers snuffed out in a generation. This House will then consist entirely a Life Peers with very little power. It is significant that in future it will be difficult to get people to sit in this House, 'with little power and with no opportunity to pass on their inheritance to anybody else, and with all the frustrations that work in this House involves, particularly for people who have been active in other fields of life. I ask the Government most seriously to consider that in this stodge of the Life Peerage, if I may be so hold as to call it that, we have a little of the leaven of the hereditary Peerage left a little longer until we see how the system works. We all know that to allow the hereditary Peers to inherit will not affect the numbers of people who are allowed to vote and therefore will not affect one of the main purposes of the Bill. It would seem to me that it is rushing things to chop off an hereditary Peerage at this stage, when it is quite possible that it will provide the balance needed by this House in the future.
11.54 p.m.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, I intervene to apologise for intervening, and I intervene because I have to apologise for not being in my place earlier. I am sure that everything I intend to say has been said over and over again. I have only one word for the Front Bench and for my noble Leader. We have been told throughout this debate that what has been said in this House will be taken into consideration in determining the nature of the Bill. There is only one way in which the Government, or my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, or my noble friend the Leader of the House can take into account the happenings over the last two days and the 105 speeches. It is to feed them into the Ministry of Defence computer.
I should like to give my noble Leader a retrieval word. It is the emphasis, repeated here over and over again, on the need to get into this House a younger element. For me—and I support the Motion—it seems that there must be some element of imagination left which will contrive to see, whatever we have measured in terms of non-attendance of hereditary Peers, that somehow two generations of thinking, between which there is an increasing gap, are reconciled. One cannot reconcile them by condemning—and I use that word advisedly—people of 30 or the early 40s to become Life Peers. I do not know how, by any system of election or selection, you can determine what a man is going to be at 60 or 70 in terms of a commitment. Therefore, we must find some way in which appointment to this House will reflect, and reflect very importantly, the qualities of the two generations—the wisdom of one and the inspiration of the other.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned until to-morrow.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

INTERNATIONAL WHEAT COUNCIL (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES) ORDER 1968
11.56 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move approval of this Order and, if I may, I will speak to the other two which are on the Order Paper. The purpose of these three Orders is to give practical effect to the provisions of the International Organisations Act 1968, which I had the honour to present to your Lordships' House some months ago. The most important purpose of that Act is to enable the United Kingdom to act as a proper host to international organisations and to offer conditions comparable to those which other countries are prepared to offer. My Lords, these Orders have been approved by another place. They were warmly received there, and I hope, therefore, that the House will also approve them.
Moved, That the Draft International Wheat Council (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1968, laid before the House on October 30, last be approved.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

INTER-GOVERNMENTAL MARI- TIME CONSULTATIVE ORGANI- SATION (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES) ORDER 1968.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1968, laid before the House on October 30 last be approved.—[Lord Shepherd.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (IMMUNITIES,lb/> AND PRIVILEGES) ORDER 1968
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Commission of the European Communities (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1968, laid before the House on October31 last be approved.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at two minutes before twelve o'clock midnight.