The Press FRIDAY, JANUARY 3, 1958. Reforming The House Of Lords

Press, Volume XCVII, Issue 28475, 3 January 1958, Page 6

The Press FRIDAY, JANUARY 3, 1958. Reforming The House Of Lords

To the casual observer and the unsympathetic, the House of Lords appears an anachronism in a democratic State—an island of heredity in a vast sea of election, of privilege in the midst of equality. Traditionally the House of Lords has been more conservative (in the nonpolitical sense) than the Commons; and it is likely, for several reasons, to remain so. But why two Houses in the first place? Basically, the reason is that a bicameral legislature is the only adequate guarantee for a nation without a written constitution. Some in New Zealand, which has a relatively small population, think this country can manage with a unitary system; but the wisdom of such a belief remains doubtful. Although the House of Lords is traditionally conservative (as the majority of its members are also traditionally Conservative) the need for reform has nevertheless long been recognised. Since 1911 the House of Lords has had the threat of radical reform over its head. Each solution offered has, until now, come up against the problem of the Conservative majority. An assurance of the continued co-operativeness of this majority would not permanently satisfy the Labour Party. Even for the many who affirm their faith in the hereditary principle the suggestion to reinforce the House of Lords with life peers and peeresses seems long overdue. Is this, by itself, enough? The scheme now under consideration envisages the progressive recomposition of the House by “wedding” a nominated element to the existing hereditary element. But, as The Times” has said, “marriage should be between “ equals, and so long as the “ swollen multitude of the “hereditary peers are capable 2of swamping life peers, who “ for the honour of their new dignity must necessarily be “few, equality is not to be “attained”. It follows that the heredity element must be reduced. The questions of hbw and when are difficult and crucial.

Lord Salisbury’s plan may be conveniently considered under three heads. The first states that the House itself should choose, from its 800.000 hereditary members who were willing to serve, some 200 to 250 to sit with the Bishops, the Law Lords, and the new life peers for the duration of the Parliament. The second proposes that the choice of peers be made through the intermediary of a select committee (drawn from a representative section of the House) which would sort out the best men available. Third, at the beginning of each Parliament the entire peerage would be called upon both for formal proceedings and to elect the select committee, thus giving the “ unpolitical peer ” the opportunity to make his voice heard. There are loopholes in this plan, particularly under the

second heading. With such a select committee chosen as i representative of the House, it is natural that the party frontbenchers would be dominant. This raises the question whether i young hereditary peers would . be at a disadvantage. On the 1 evidence it seems probable. The i committee could not hope to I judge accurately the political < capabilities of a new peer who 1 had yet to take his seat. It <

would be a considerable improvement if the new hereditary peer could be admitted by right to one Parliament at least, and given his chance to prove his capacity and make himself known.

The proposal to admit peeresses on equal terms with the peers has aroused controversy. The opposition of the Conservative back-bench has been a serious embarrassment to the Government, as Labour is not likely to support any bill, no matter how generous its terms, unless women are included. The wisdom of lifting the so-called “purdah” has been long and strenuously debated, not without some humour; but there seems to be little doubt women will be admitted.

Generally speaking, the Socialists oppose the hereditary principle, though there are some notable exceptions. But, on the matter of limiting the number of hereditary peers, there is deep division on both sides of the House. The abolition of hereditary peerages would not solve the question. A chamber nominated by the Prime Minister for each Parliament would not only give too much power to one man but also end the continuity of the Lords, which has been one of its greatest assets. The only other alternative to a nominated chamber is an elected chamber, for which no-one has any enthusiasm. An elected chamber might challenge the authority of the Commons, which, in modern constitutional theory, exercises the sovereign power of the people. The record of the Lords up to 1914 would not recommend it as a democratic institution. Throughout most of the nineteenth century it was riotablf mainly for its bitter opposition to the democratic reforms that were characteristic of the times. Since 1911, however, the powers of the Lords

! have been steadily whittled ! down, the last instalment ! of reform being as recent as ’ 1950. Changes in form have I been accompanied by changes in attitude and policy until today ! the House of Lords is recognised ■ even by many Socialists as an i invaluable part of the machinery of Parliament. In the i immediate post-war years the ' House of Lords demonstrated its effectiveness as a revisory chamber in dealing with a vast legislative programme. The House of Lords, indeed, has virtues not common to every second chamber. First, it has a great reserve of knowledge and experience, enhanced by complete freedom of conscience in voting. There is no lobbying or grouping in the Lords. Second, the Lords, being less concerned with politics than the Commons, are more interested in the legal and administrative than in the controversial political aspects of legislation. Many of the firstgeneration peers have been administrators of wide experience. Finally, committee work, especially on private bills and orders, is usually better done in the Lords than in the Commons. Members of Parliament are usually better at dealing in generalities than with details. Although not the most powerful, the Lords remains perhaps the most respected upper house in the world. It can retain its

enviable position only by continuously adapting itself to changing conditions.