ABOLISH LORDS, OR REFORM IT?

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18188, 22 June 1927, Page 11

ABOLISH LORDS, OR REFORM IT?

PEERS DISCUSS NEEDS OF PRESENT DAY. By Telegraph.—Press Assn.—Copyright. A.P.A. and Sydney '* Sun ” Cable. LONDON, June 20. In the House of Lords the debate on the reform of the House of Lords was initiated by Lord Fitzalan, who moved a motion welcoming some reasonable measure of limiting and defining the membership. Dealing with the inherent defects in the Parliament Act he said that he did not desire to impair the traditions or privileges of the House of Lords, but they must look the facts in the face and the House should have the opportunity of expressing its opinion on the question of reform. Compared with the House of Commons they had 720 members against 615. y r et in the largest postwar House of Lords division only 26S voted. Personally' he would like to see the House consist of a reduced number elected by their Lordships. The time had come when a preponderance of the hereditary principle was no longer practicable. An election in some form from outside was necessary. He suggested that portion of the members be elected by their Lordships plus the outside elective element, also some Government nominations. The Socialist Party if it got a chance would legislate for a single chamber, therefore he appealed to the House to show an unselfish spirit and safeguard the country from a revolutionary change. The Duke of Marlborough moved an amendment that in view of the failure of a scheme of reform to arouse interest, further discussion on the point was inopportune and unprofitable. The Earl of Arran moved a further amendment that in view of the omission of so grave an alteration in the constitution from the Government’s election programme, it would be contrary to Parliamentary practice to introduce a measure till the electorate had expressed its views. He expressed the opinion that if there was any’ alteration in the hereditary principle, it must be its entire abolition, -otherwise would be a source of weakness in a reformed chamber. The Lord Chancellor said there was 'a real and urgent problem to solve. After consideration by Cabinet of the committee’s report, the Ministry expressed the opinion that Parliament should be asked to accept the proposals of the Bruce Committee and enact that. The question of whether the Bill was a money Bill should be decided by a joint committee of both Houses, instead of solely' by' the Speaker. It was possible that a Biil completely abolishing the second Chamber might be regarded as within the letter of the Parliament Act, and it might throw on the Sovereign the responsibility' of deciding whether or not to withhold Royal assent. Such a Bill as the Ministry proposed would be a safeguard. No Bill altering the constitution and powers of the House ot Lords should be passed into law without the House of Lords’ assent. The Ministry’s plan did not include proposals dealing with deadlocks between the two Houses. It had been suggested that in such a case the provisions of the Parliament Act should not apply till the electorate had decided, but Mr Baldwin had said that his proposal would come within the framework of the Parliament Act, anc such a change as that suggested migh. be difficult to make without first sue rnitting it to the electorate. Besides if it were insisted upon, it would raise the whole question of the continuance of the House of Lords in its presen i foirm. If such a vital proposal were nade, it would have to be considers whether it should continue as « hereditary House, or whether some elective body would take its place. There fore, the Government excluded deart locks and also the elective element. Machinery must be found unde; which representation of the Labou Party was possible. Therefore, it waproposed that the Sovereign act or. the lines of the Bryce report, and ; limited number of nominated member.be appointed for twelve years, a thir< of whom should go out every fourth vear. It was further proposed thai hereditary Peers be called upon to se lect from their own ranks a fixed nurr. ber of Peers on the same terms o. tenure. The reformed House woulc consist of not more than 200 meiji bers composed of Peers of Royal blooo Lords spiritual, law Lords anc. hereditary Peers, elected by their owi irder, and members nominated by tin Crown, the number of the last tw Casses* to be determined by statute with the exception of Royal, law anc spiritual Peers. The others would hole, seats for a term fixable by statute anc be eligible for re-election. Those no. elected would be eligible for electio. .o the House of Commons. A more an bitious scheme might have more at tractions, but this was a < cautious step in the right direction. There might L , greater danger in standing still If th- , matter were fairly' raised anc. courageously, it might avert dangei and restore strength tr the constitu iion’s fabric. . . . - Lord Haldane said that it they tr.ee. to strengthen the House ct herd pgainst the House of Commons, the Labour Party would fight the proposals to the end. . The debate was adjourned.