Manawatu Evening Standard. FRIDAY, NOV. 25, 1932. REFORM OF THE LORDS.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LII, Issue 307, 25 November 1932, Page 6

Manawatu Evening Standard. FRIDAY, NOV. 25, 1932. REFORM OF THE LORDS.

The report of the joint committee of Conservative Peers and members of Parliament on proposals for reform of the Upper House of the British Parliament, like previous schemes which have failed to fructify, provides for the dual system of the right to sit in the Lords—hereditary and representative. There have been so many reports and suggestions, official and otherwise, on this subject during the past two decades, and no action taken, that it seems almost impossible to frame a system that will ensure •the reform legislation getting through. The latest report contains the very elements of a con s troversy, and if and when the Commons is given the opportunity to vote on a reform measure on the lines indicated by the joint committee it is likely to provoke keen criticism. The committee proposes an Upper Chamber consisting of 320 members, of whom 150 would be hereditary Peers chosen by their fellows, and 150 would be the elected representatives of local authorities grouped for that purpose. The nominative system is a drawback to the proposals in the light of past opposition, while it is almost certain that the Labour members of the Lower House will fight tooth and nail a system which gives the Lords authority to usurp their powers or nullify them, especially on money Bills, a point which, by the way, the joint committee suggests should' be .disposed of by definitely settling what is a money Bill and what is not. It will be recalled that in 1927 proposals by the Baldwin Government for reform of the Lords were advanced and created a sharp division of opinion, leading in fact to a motion of censure moved by Mr Ramsay MacDonald which, however, was overwhelmingly defeated. The plan was first voiced, in the Upper House by Viscount Cave, the then Lord Chancellor, who said that Cabinet proposed that the reformed Chamber should consist of 350 members in all, of whom only Peers of the Blood, Bishops and Law Lords would be permanent.- The remainder would be composed of members elected by and from existing peers and of members nominated by the Crown on the advice of Ministers. It was not proposed to repeal the Parliament Act, but a Joint Standing Committee, representing both Houses equally, would replace the Speaker as the judge of what were money Bills. It should be explained that the House of Peers has no power to veto a money Bill or, in fact, take any steps in matters of legislation involving appropriations. It is worth while, ere proceeding further on a review of this subject, to note the similarity of Cabinet’s 1927 proposals and those just recently presented. The debate on the earlier proposals attracted great interest among the Peers. There was some procrastination, but eventually the Lords rejected a motion delaying the decision till after an election, and subsequently carried a resolution calling for a measure limiting and defining membership, and dealing with “the defects inherent to certain provisions of the' Parliament Act.” In the Lower House, after

the Lords debate, Mr MacDonald, then leading the Opposition, moved the motion of censure referred to, saying that the proposals meant that no matter who was in office the Tories were in power. Mr Stanley Baldwin, in the course of his reply, made it plain that no second Chamber must be able to overthrow Governments or rival the popular Chamber’s rights over finance, though he supported some of the other features of the proposals. He declared that they Avere offered only for criticism and ventilation, and said that a Bill would be framed on the greatest common measure of agreement. Mr MacDonald’s censure motion was rejected, but that did not mean that reform of the Lords would proceed as AA r as expected. Delay in reaching an agreement as to the lines the Bill Avould take, and the changes in the fortune of the Baldwin Government preA'ented any further progress being made, and thus to-day we again have a recurrence of the demand for reform. The present strength of the House of Lords is more than double that proposed, but comparatively few of those entitled to sit ever attend, and it is noteAvorthy that those who do attend are most regular and are well endowed to debate the country’s problems and policies in either House. However, if all who are entitled to sit were to do so, the House would become far too unwieldly; as it is, the system has many drawbacks. The development of the latest plan should be interesting to watch. At the moment the chief barriers to progress on the proposals are the nominative system and the definition of what shall be termed money Bills.