HOUSE OF LORDS.

Hokitika Guardian, 23 June 1927, Page 1

HOUSE OF LORDS.

LORDS REFORM DEB ATI

(Australian & N.Z. Cable Association.)

LONDON, June 20.

Jn tiie House of Lords, a debate on tile reform of the House of Lords was initiated by Lord Eitzai'au, who moved a motion that the House would welcome some reasonable measure of limiting and defining the membership ol the House of Lords.

Dealing with the inherent defects in the Parliament Act, he said lie 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 ol Lords should have an opportunity of expressing its opinion on the question of the reform of their House. Compared with the House of Commons, they had 720 members against (>1.3. Yet in the largest post-war House of Lords division, only 2US members voted. Personally, he would like to see the House of Lords consist ot a reduced number of members elected by Their Lordships. The time bad come when the preponderance of the hereditary principle was no longer practicable. Election in some form from the outside was necessary. He suggetsed that- portion of the House shoui'il be elected by Their Lordships, plus an outside elective element, and also some Government uoininat ions. The Socialist Party, lie said, if it got the chance, would legislate for a single Chamber. Therefore bo appealed to the House of Lords to show an unselfish spirit and safeguard the country from a revoliintionarv change. Lord Marlborough moved an amendment stating that, in view of the failing' of the scheme of reform to arouse any interest, further discussion on the point moved be inopportune, and unprofitable.

Lord Arran moved a further amendment, viz.. ••That in view of the omission of so grave an alteration in the Constitution from the Government’s ilection programme, it would lie contrary to Parliamentary procedure to introduce any measure till the decorate had expressed the opinion that if there were any alteration in the hereditary principle, it must he its entire abolition. Otherwise, it would he a source of weakness in a reformed Clin niber.

The Lord Chancellor said that there was a real and urgent problem to solve. Alter consideration by the Cabinet- of the Committee's report, the Ministry j Imd expressed the opinion that Parlia-J incut should bo asked to accept the! proposals of the Bryce Committee, and to enact that the question of whether! a Bill was a lnonov Bill should be do-] cidcd by a joint committee of both ! Houses, instead of solely bv the Speaker. It was possible, he said, that a Bill completely abolishing their second chamber might be regarded as ■ within the letter of the Parliament Act, and might throw on the Sovcs reign the responsibility of deciding I whether or not to withhold tho royal | assent. Such a Bill as the ministry j proposed would be a safeguard. No Bill altering the constitution, and the J powers of the House of Lords should lie passed into law without the House of Lords’ assent. The .Ministry’s plan did not include proposals for dealing! with deadlocks between the two, Houses. It had been suggested that in such a case, flic provisions of the! Parliament Act should not apply till the electorate bad decided. Mr Bald-, win bad said that- bis proposals would j ecme within the framework of the Parliament Act, and such change as that suggested might be difficult In make ( without- lirst submitting it to the elec-1 torn to. Besides, if it were insisted upon, it would raise the whole question of tin* continuance of the House ol Lords in its present form. If such a vital proposal were made, it would have to lie considered whether it should continue as a" hereditary House, or whether some elective body should take its place. Therefore the Government bad excluded deadlocks and also the elective element. Machinery must lie found under which representation ot I lie Labour Party in the House of Lords would be possible. Therefore, it was proposed that the Sovereign should acton the lines of the Bryce report and a limited number of nominated members should be appointed for twelve years, one-third of whom would go out every fourth year. It was further proposed that the hereditary Peers he called upon to select from their own ranks a fixed number of Peers on the same terms ol tenure. I lie rotormed House would consist of not more than 230 members, composed of peers of the royal blood, lords spiritual, law lords, and hereditary peers elected by tlieir own order, and also members nominated by the crown. The number of the last two classes to be determined by statue. With the exception of the royal, law and spiritual peers, the others would be eligible for re-election. Those not elected would be eligible for election to the House of Commons. A more ambitious scheme might have more attractions, but this was a cautious step ill the right direction. There might ho greater danger in standing still. If the matter were fairly raised and faced courageously, it might avert danger and restore strength to the constitution’s fabric. Lord Haldane said that if they tried to strengthen the House ol Lords against the House of Commons, the Labour Party would fight their proposal to the end. The debate was adjourned.

OPPOSED TO LORDS REFORM. LONDON, June 23. Air Lloyd George conferred with Liberal Peers and reached a decision that the Liberals oppose the Government reform proposals with ali' their might, on the ground that the system weak oils the Commons and strengthens tli Lords, making the latter chamber a. Tory machine for ever.