VOTING RIGHTS OF MINISTERS AND OTHER OFFICERS

§ Mr. Michael Foot (Ebbw Vale)

I was not sure whether to interrupt my own remarks with a point or order, but on balance I have decided to proceed with what I was saying earlier, because I do not wish to hold up the Committee unduly. So conclusive were the remarks which I last addressed to the Committee that I had hoped that it would not be necessary for me to add to them. I hope that it will be well understood in all quarters that on the Amendment and on the whole of the Bill we will all be content if the rest is silence. We would be content if the Bill were dropped at this moment, and I think that that is strictly relevant to this subsection.

The Chairman

Order.

Mr. Foot

I thought that I would be in order in saying that the subsection should be dropped.

The Chairman

Order. The hon. Gentleman was talking about the Bill in general. He must relate his remarks to the Amendment.

Mr. Foot

A good start would be to drop the subsection altogether, for that would mean the death of the Bill. Most of us accept that the murder of this ailing infant is already being arranged in other quarters.

§ Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames)

Euthanasia.

§ Mr. Foot

In view of the days and nights that we have endured discussing 812 this Measure, I would not dignify its end by speaking of euthanasia.

While we would be content for the matter to be left there—for the subsection to be dropped—it is suggested that we should proceed with the Amendment because of a desire on the part of my hon. Friends to discuss it. That is not so. We are proceeding with the Amendment, which was originally moved by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), because the Government, with the agreement of the Opposition Front Bench, think it right that the time of Parliament should be devoted to the Bill. My hon. Friends and I who have opposed the Measure believe that we are wasting our time and that there are more important matters to which the attention of Parliament should be directed.

The Chairman

Order. The hon. Gentleman has not so far addressed his remarks to the Amendment, which is concerned with the length of voting time.

§ Mr. Foot

I was getting warmer though, Mr. Irving, and I shall get even warmer. I wanted to clear the ground lest anybody should suggest, as it has been suggested in some quarters, that my hon. Friends and I want to use the time of Parliament discussing this matter. This whole debate could have been avoided, and we have offered ample opportunities to the Government to drop the whole thing——

The Chairman

Order. The hon. Gentleman is not getting visibly warmer. He must come to the Amendment.

§ Mr. Foot

Recalling our earlier discussion on the Amendment, it might be helpful, as I have set out the background to the opposition which my hon. Friends and I feel to the subsection, if I were to abbreviate my remarks by asking the Minister a series of questions.

Hon. Members who have strayed into the Chamber and who are wondering what is going on may think that this is a somewhat esoteric debate. Perhaps it is, in that having discussed whether or not we should set up a new Second Chamber and having made arrangements for special favours to be provided for ex-Ministers and ex-Law Lords in the other place, we should now be discussing the provision of special arrangements to 813 extend the period beyond that being offered to other peers in which they may choose whether or not to exercise their voting rights.

We would prefer to remove this objectionable provision from the Bill, although even that would not improve the Measure greatly. Few people still believe that the Bill will ever reach another place. If it did, the provision should be, and I think would, be struck out by the other place. That is all the more reason why we should strike it out now, while we have the chance. If the other place allowed this provision to become law, that Chamber would forfeit its claim to be a revising House, which is the primary claim made for its existence.

4.15 p.m.

Although the Minister could have replied as soon as the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West had moved the Amendment—he could have indicated his willingness to strike out this special favour for ex-Ministers and ex-Law Lords, so enabling us to proceed with the rest of the Bill—he was obviously acting under the instruction that the Bill must go through in precisely the form in which it has been presented. The reason, of course, was that there should be no Report stage.

In paraphrasing my remarks, I will put 10 questions to the Minister. First, what is the origin of this unique feature in our legislation whereby it is proposed that ex-Ministers or ex-Law Lords in the proposed second Chamber shall retain their voting rights for a whole Parliament if they have made the necessary declaration within the extended period—of unspecified length, which, for special reasons, Parliament may allow—beyond that which shall apply to other Members of that House?

Secondly, why have ex-Ministers been selected to receive this special favour over and above the other special favours which they will receive under other parts of the Clause? Thirdly, why has it been thought right to give to ex-Law Lords the same special favours which have been given to ex-Ministers, if that is the case?

§ Mr. Ronald Bell (Buckinghamshire, South)

When talking about ex-Ministers and ex-Law Lords, would the hon. Gen- 814 tleman make it clear whether he is referring to "X" Ministers or ex-Ministers?

§ Mr. Foot

I have not used the term ex-Ministers in an offensive way. The prefix "X" obviously refers to former Ministers and provides me with a brief method of presenting my case, something for which I am always searching.

Fourthly, who made the agreement about these extraordinary concessions? Was it part of the agreement which was accepted by the Opposition Front Bench and the spokesmen for the Conservative Party and other parties in another place? Were they parties to these provisions? This is a matter of some importance in relation to a subject which I shall discuss later.

Fifth, has it been agreed by the other parties to the agreement that the operation of this subsection and the determination of the "special reasons" referred to shall be settled by the House committee, that is, by the committee to be set up in another place to deal with all these matters which are not to be dealt with specifically in the Bill.

Sixth, has there been any discussion about what these "special reasons" may be? The hon. Gentleman said in earlier debate on the Bill that the "special reasons" referred only to particular people and to claims which they might be able to make. But we have not yet been assured that that covers this provision as well as the earlier subsection in which these "special reasons" were invoked. If there has been any discussion about these "special reasons", who discussed the matter and what conclusions did they reach?

Seventh, has there been any agreement about the extent of the "extended period" referred to in the subsection, that is the period in which ex-Ministers, and possibly ex-Law Lords, will have the opportunity of making the declaration that they wish to have their voting rights for the whole of the rest of that Parliament? Has there been any agreement about the period in which they will be able to continue to make these claims?

Eighth, why do the Government think that the committee appointed by the House to fix this matter will be able to do so without any guidance about the 815 principles to be applied? Will the Minister give us any guidance on this matter? We should like to know whether any suggestions will be laid down as to the rules which should govern the operation of the committee which is to be set up in another place, or whether it is to be left entirely to their whim and decision as to how they are to lay down these rules.

Ninth, will there be any limitation on the number of ex-Ministers and Law Lords who may apply during the extended period for these extended rights throughout a whole Parliament—what might be called the extended benefit? Is the extended benefit to be provided for any number of peers who may make application, or is there to be a fixed number?

The right hon. Gentleman has rightly said that this is an important matter. If the number of the peers applying for the extended benefit and for the right to continue to vote for a whole Parliament were to be large, then that large number would offset and overturn the calculations of the Government in the whole of the Bill. The number of peers who might be able to insist on the exercise of their votes in another place under this subsection, if it is unchanged, might be sufficient to alter all the other provisions of the Bill, and certainly to alter the general intention laid down in the Preamble. Therefore, although at first sight it may appear that the issues involved in this Amendment are esoteric and refined, it may be seen that they can cover the whole intentions of the Bill. Tenth—

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North)

I have listened attentively to the questions which my hon. Friend has put to the Minister, but it is only on the ninth question that he has gone to the length of explaining the reasons for the question, his point of view, and so on. Could he not have explained on the previous eight questions the reasons for them, his point of view, and his objections to or support for them? If he does not do so, I do not know whether to support his ten questions or not.

§ Mr. Foot

I must invite my hon. Friend to read the HANSARD proceedings of our last debate when I sought to give 816 the background to this matter. I have not today sought to repeat what I then said. Indeed the right hon. Gentleman devoted the bulk of his speech to the general background of the whole matter.

My tenth question is as follows. Do the Government think that these provisions, taken in conjunction with all the others which we have discussed, which may increase or alter the total number of peers, will upset the delicate balance between the parties on which the legislation is based? We should like to have the Government's view as to the numbers which they think might be involved.

These are legitimate questions to ask. If the Government complain that by asking such questions I am carrying the matter into much greater detail than is necessary and am seeking to pin down the Government in a manner which is ill-advised and inexusable, my first retort is that the responsibility must be that of the Government.

Some of us find it remarkable that such a subsection, indeed such a Clause, should ever have been included in the Bill at all. The commonsense is on our side. The commonsense is on the side of those who say that, in discussing an aspect of a future second Chamber—a second Chamber whose size and capacities and nature are left open to widespread dispute—nothing could be more absurd than that we should try to settle in detail the exact manner in which ex-Ministers or ex-Law Lords might be able to extend their voting rights, say, into the latter part of the 1970s, for a start, and thereafter for the rest of the existence of the Chamber in this form.

It is not our responsibility that these matters have to be debated. The responsibility rests squarely with the Government and with the Opposition Front Bench which has connived at the presentation of this matter. Some of us on this side of the House are bitterly opposed to the Measure. Practised observers of our discussions may have seen that there is a lack of acquiescence on the back benches opposite, and therefore I acquit them of wishing to push through this Measure. For the rest, the responsibility is clear.

I wish to emphasise two other aspects. There was some discussion on an earlier occasion about whether the Preamble 817 went much further than the Bill itself. If one looks at the Preamble and compares it with this subsection, one sees that the whole of the subsection is outside the Preamble. Amendment 235 would bring part of it more within the Preamble. I invite the Committee to look at the Preamble, which says: to establish within the House a body of voting members exclusively entitled to participate in decisions relating to legislation and other matters, being qualified in that behalf by virtue of their attendance to the business of Parliament or by their official position;…

§ The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Harry Gourlay)

I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are not discussing the Preamble but Amendment No. 235, which deals with subsection (2)(b).

§ Mr. Foot

I was seeking to suggest, Mr. Gourlay, that the subsection is outside the Preamble. In order to do that, I had to quote the Preamble and was seeking to suggest that as the whole subsection—in fact the whole Clause—is outside the Preamble, it would make it slightly more within the Preamble if we were to knock out part of the offending subsection. This is what the Amendment seeks to do.

The Preamble sets out to state how the voting rights shall be obtained, sustained and retained by those who hold official positions, amongst others, in the other place. By this subsection we are ensuring that those voting rights will be retained in certain circumstances by people who have exhausted their official position. That is precisely what is intended. It refers to ex-Ministers and ex-Law Lords. I am therefore extremely doubtful whether the provision is within the Preamble. In any case, the Amendment gives the Government the opportunity, which they could have seized before, of trying to put the subsection more in order than it is.

4.30 p.m.

I wish to refer to the suggestion made by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West about the explanation which existed in some people's mind for why we are confronted with proposals of this nature. The right hon. Gentleman made his remarks in dealing with an earlier Amendment, but clearly they apply to this Amendment. If his Amendment were carried, it would, in some 818 small degree, mitigate the offence. The right hon. Gentleman said that in searching for an explanation as to why we should provide such advantages for particular people in another place at a future date, he could only think that some inducements had been offered to the Law lords by the Government or the committee arranging the provisions of the White Paper or the Bill.

"Inducements" is a very heavy word. It hangs like a pall over our debates. If inducements have been offered, and apparently accepted, according to the right hon. Gentleman, by the Government to the Law Lords to make them agreeable to the Measure as a whole, they should be probed. So far there has been no response from the Government to this question, although they have had opportunities to respond to it. I hope that they will deal with the matter. If they deny the charge that inducements have been offered, perhaps they will, in this fit of candour, go on to explain whether there were any discussions at all with the Law Lords. If, as I fully expect, the Government say that no such inducements were offered, it substantiates further the argument for removing this part of the Bill altogether. The only possible excuse which anyone could see for such bizarre provisions in a Bill like this is that a backstairs agreement was reached in order to get them through.

If the Government say that no prior arrangements have been made and that the matter is to be decided entirely on its merits, then not one hon. Member would say that this subsection should be passed on its merits in the form that the Government present it to us. But that applies to the Bill as a whole. I hope that we do not have to waste any more time on the Bill, but if a single extra minute is wasted on it the responsibility will rest with the Government, who are determined to present it to the House of Commons, and with the Opposition Front Bench, whose members say nothing on the subject whatsoever. The Opposition Front Bench has no advice to give either to the Committee or to the country on this subsection or any other part of the Bill. By their silence, they would permit the Bill to go ahead. But there are some hon. Members who are still determined to kill the Bill, and we hope that we are getting assistance in other quarters than the Palace of Westminster.

§ Mr. John Peyton (Yeovil)

You, Mr. Gourlay, did not have the good fortune to be present when your predecessor in the Chair called the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). So great was the hon. Gentleman's surprise that he should be called at this stage to say something about the Amendment when the Bill was, as he has just pointed out, under threat of death elsewhere, that the Committee and he were both gripped by complete and utter silence. It was easily the most moving thing that I have experienced during the proceedings on the Bill. It lasted for some time, and I am sorry that you, Mr. Gourlay, were not here to enjoy it with us.

I have a certain amount of sympathy with the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), who challenged the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale on being somewhat terse in his important questions to the Minister. Some of his questions were put very rapidly and in such a laconic way that it was surprising that the hon. Gentleman was almost at a loss for a sufficient volume of words with which to express his very important questions.

Although it is purely speculative ground for me, I should like to say something about the relationship between my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench and the subsection. I cannot believe that there is any ground for a paternity order. I am always the first to think the very best of my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench, particularly when they are represented by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson), in whose learning, sagacity and wisdom I have the utmost confidence. I am sure that he would never lend himself to so flabby a piece of drafting as that which we are considering. I agree with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale in expressing the hope that we shall hear from my right hon. and learned Friend a reasonably brief disavowal of responsibility for this rather offensive subsection.

Those who know the extent of my right hon. and learned Friend's abilities, and particularly his ability at the Dispatch Box, believe that it is a great pity that we should be deprived of the benefit of hearing him speak on such a matter as this. I make the sincere plea to my right hon. and learned Friend that before 820 we part with this important Amendment we shall hear from him, even if it is only to say that he has no responsibility for this flabby thing, so that the charge which the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale so discourteously levelled against him may be squashed.

This Bill is almost unique, even in the horrors of modern legislation, in the amount which it leaves to be settled. The subsection deserves to be singled out for its vagueness and flabbiness. It is odd that in drafting the Bill, which is very vague in most of its Clauses, the Government should have sought to be precise in this instance and that their efforts to be precise should have failed so disastrously and obviously. My hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite have already dealt adequately with the obvious objections. But what is meant by "such extended period"? How is it that there is no limit to the extension? Is there no limit? Can it go on throughout the whole of a Session or, indeed, throughout the whole of a Parliament? I hope very much that the Government will be able to explain to us, before we leave this unpleasant thing, what exactly is meant by that.

Then we come on to this other point, this faithful echo. One of the troubles, it seems to me, is that once an idea occurs in the Bill it has to be echoed at other parts of the Bill. I do not need to remind the Committee that this subsection is a faithful echo of Clause 3(4) which says: A voting declaration in respect of a Parliament shall not be deposited by any peer after the end of the period of one month from the issue of the writ summoning him to attend the House in that Parliament, or such extended period as the House may for special reasons allow. Well, such has been the express, dazzling, dizzy process of this Bill through Committee that I have not got exactly in my mind at the moment the utterances which we were privileged to hear from the Government when we were discussing that subsection, and I hope very much that when the Under-Secretary of State answers the debate on this one he will explain in detail what the Government have in mind in talking about such extended period as the House may for special reasons allow". I hope particularly that he will tell us what kind of special reasons he has in 821 mind, because it seems to me to be utterly absurd that we in this Committee should be attempting to state in some detail the ground rules for an assembly which most of us do not wish to see in being at all but which the Government in their anxiety to do something have nevertheless determined upon.

I hope that the Under-Secretary will not quail too much under the heavy responsibility of justifying such really flabby legislation as this. Though there are abundant precedents on the Statute Book in modern times for bad, evil, verbose, prolix legislation I nevertheless think that this subsection with which the Committee is now dealing deserves some special mention in the annals of horror which are the photograph album of our legislative process.

I know that there are many other hon. Gentlemen who wish to speak on this most important Amendment. It is always the case that none of the hon. Gentlemen who support this Bill dares come in here and listen to the arguments—and expose such wavering determination as they have to the awful risk of hearing the overwhelming arguments which are deployed against the Bill. I warmly agree with almost everything which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale said. I think he was unfair to my right hon. and learned Friend on our Front Bench, and I earnestly ask my right hon. and learned Friend, when the opportunity comes, at the end of this most interesting debate on this abominable subsection, to tell us in clear tones that he is in no way responsible for this particularly flabby provision in a particularly woolly Measure.

§ Mr. Robert Sheldon (Ashton-under-Lyne)

I think we are becoming clearer in our own minds as to the fundamental division between the Government and the Official Opposition on the one hand, and on the other, the back benchers in their objection to so many parts of this Bill, and it is because there has been a realisation that the Government are proceeding on the basis that they can retain the traditions of the House of Lords while at the same time giving that House very real power. So many of the Amendments which have been put down and which have been debated, as this one—

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis

On a point of order. I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, to whom I always listen with great interest; but I really do think that there ought to be more hon. Gentlemen here to listen to him; and so may I draw to your notice, Mr. Gourlay, that there are not even 40 Members here? Can we try to get 40 here to listen to the debate?

§ Mr. Sheldon

This division has now become apparent between the Front Benches, acting in agreement, and the back benchers, who have put down Amendments, of which this is a particularly important one; and the division which is now showing itself is that between those who think one can retain the traditions, as they exist, of the House of Lords and at the same time give it far greater power. What many hon. Members who have put down Amendments really feel is that once we change the basis and the rôle which that House occupies—fairly sleepy, not very important, at the present time—and start giving it real power, then the way we devise the rules for that Chamber becomes of exceedingly great importance to us. So we have to scrutinise this Bill in a way we scrutinise few Bills so thoroughly, because of the very great measure of power which we are giving to that place, and we cannot, in terms of that gentlemen's agreement, any longer have that fiction which the Front Benches have in mind for the House of Lords, because we are now creating an animal different from that which has existed in the past. Because of this we have to read even the small print, so to speak; even the two last lines of this subsection.

When we think in terms of the constitutional importance of the virtual creation of a new second Chamber we must remember that at the present time what is going on in France is a similar matter, not all that different from what we are doing. There, they are having a national referendum, having agonies of mind about it, and the President has staked his future political life on it. It must not be thought that we are overstating the case and extending it too far, 823 because what we are engaged in considering here is as important as what is going on in France. I mention that only as a background to show that there is no need for excuses by those who have been drawing the attention of the Committee to the importance of what we are doing. The fact is that countries not very dissimilar from ours do as much, and in nearly every case far more, when they examine matters as important, as serious, and with such long-term consequences as this Measure.

We must scrutinise the Bill as thoroughly as we can. We are now considering the need to extend the period during which the House of Lords can give certain peers special privileges by enabling them to decide at some stage in the future that they will become voting peers. We know that if a peer is a Minister there is no need for any voting declaration, but ex-Ministers and ex-Law Lords are to be given an extended period in which to make their voting declarations. They are to be given a period which is not stated in the Bill. It may last for many years—perhaps from the beginning of a Parliament to the end of it. This provision could have serious consequences both for ex-Ministers and for the composition of the House of Lords.

One matter which has concerned us in debates on previous Clauses, and will no doubt concern us in discussing later Clauses, is that of patronage. An ex-Minister who has been out of office for a number of years, and who has shown little interest in what is going on in the other place, may suddenly find that because the Government want to redress the balance of their vote in the House of Lords they have decided to make him a voting peer. In the past the system has operated fairly quietly and conventionally on the basis of a gentleman's understanding. What we are now creating, and what we must be conscious of all the time, is a centre of power. The Government may wish to increase their vote, and one way of doing it could be to restore the vote to an ex-Minister, possibly at a critical time in the lifetime of a Parliament.

I hope that the Minister will give us clear and firm reasons why he thinks extra time is needed. Why are we trying 824 to give this extra advantage to certain ex-law lords and certain ex-Ministers? Is it because someone may have forgotten to fill in his voting declaration? We are talking about capable people who have been provided with offices and staffs to help them do their work. Surely they should be able to perform the simple task of filling in their voting declarations in time? We know the importance of meeting deadlines when we seek nomination at a General Election. We know that there is a deadline, and we take jolly good care to meet it. I see no reason why members in the other place should not be able to take the same degree of care to meet their deadlines, which are far more generous than those which we have to meet.

It is not a question of error, or of a peer forgetting to send in his declaration. If that was all that was involved, the difficulty could be got round by a number of devices and I am sure that the Government would be able to give us details of them. What worries many of us, and what makes the discussion of this Amendment so important, is that the Government have not considered this carefully or if they have they have deliberately left open a loophole so that they can increase the number of their supporters in the House of Lords almost at will during the lifetime of a Parliament. If that is the case, it is extremely serious, because it brings us up against the whole question of the operation of the House of Lords.

As we have learned, we can never discuss anything to do with the new House of Lords without bearing in mind the implications of the payment of £2,000 a year.

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis

As the salaries of the chairmen of the nationalised boards have been increased, my hon. Friend should bear in mind that the salary of £2,000 a year for members in the other place may be increased pro rata.

§ Mr. Sheldon

That could be, so perhaps I might refer to a figure of £2,000 with the addendum suggested by my hon. Friend.

We cannot discuss the new House of Lords without bearing in mind the certainty that a large sum of money is to go hand in hand with the job there. Paying members that kind of money means 825 an extension of the patronage which may be available at any time. We know the reason for ex-Ministers and ex-Law Lords retaining their voting rights. They are supposed to be people with knowledge who need to be there, but I have some doubts about the necessity for giving them the right to vote, rather than merely giving them the right to speak. If we are saying that a vote is essential, what we are really doing is denying the basis of the two-tier system. We are saying that an ex-Minister who has the authority of his office does not achieve that authority if he does not have a voting right, and that seems to me to strike at the whole basis of the new House of Lords.

This subsection will bear very heavily indeed on those who do not acquire the vote immediately but wish to acquire it later, and thus there is here a further element of patronage. There are a number of forms of patronage which we must constantly bear in mind. There is, first, patronage to Members here who behave themselves and are rewarded by being sent to the other place. This is the kind of patronage that concerns me most. Then there is patronage for peers who behave themselves. They can become Ministers or junior Ministers. There is also patronage for Ministers. If they behave themselves, they can retain their voting rights. We must remember that when we talk about voting, we mean money. We mean members getting money. We mean peers and Ministers behaving themselves and getting money. That is what we are talking about.

We cannot introduce changes such as these without bringing about a fundamental change in the way the House of Lords operates. The most damning criticism of the Bill is that the Government and the Opposition have assumed that we can make big changes, and give the other place much greater power, while at the same time retaining the kind and gentlemanly way in which the other place conducts its business at the present time. The lesson of any organisation is that giving power and money means change and to assume that there will be no changes is a grievous mistake which will have serious consequences.

The Amendment brings us again to the differences between Front Bench and 826 back bench, between those of us who are suspicious and those Front Benchers who talk about the need for a sensible approach. However perfect the Bill might have been, certain parts of it had to be accepted as an agreement in principle, not all of which could be in the Bill. But those who want this sensible approach must be judged on their Bill. If it had been competent, well thought-out and intelligently researched, we might have been more prepared to grant concessions. It is because this is such a wretched Bill and will have such evil consequences that I am suspicious of those things which are not in the Bill.

We are not hearing much about modifications now, for which I am grateful. It is now being realised that a Bill like this is not brought in every two years, that it must be got right first time, yet this Bill seems to have been——

§ The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Harry Gourlay)

Order. We are discussing not the Bill but Amendment No. 235.

§ Mr. Sheldon

I am sorry for having wandered, Mr. Gourlay.

The phrase about the extended period is so vague that it could have been introduced only on the assumption that it could be modified in two year's time. This euphoria, which was so evident when our debates began but is rather less evident today, is partly responsible for this wording. It was felt that it could be changed if proved wrong. This kind of hopeful assumption is false, and every Amendment should be thoroughly examined to obviate this loose phrasing. This is all part of the "lolly" on which reform was sold to the Lords. They were, understandably, happy that some of their number should receive large sums of money for certain tasks. Yet we have serious objections, because many of us feel that this allows the House of Lords to "muscle in" on the prerogatives of this elected House—something which we strongly oppose.

When serving as such, many Law Lords at present try to retain a considerable impartiality. I accept that some do not uphold these standards, but they are not pertinent to the Amendment. But once they have ceased to face those obligations, they must enter the political strife, which will inevitably be part of 827 the new House, although it may not have been so evident in the existing House of Lords. They will no longer be able to be neutral on these great issues when the House of Lords is the power base that we know it will be. It is precisely on great issues that their votes will be needed. The Whips will be making all sorts of encouraging noises to get these people to vote.

It is even more important for existing Law Lords, but they are not dealt with in the Amendment. The ex-Law Lords will be the subject of various blandishments to make sure that they vote for the Government. This is what so much of our discussion is about. It was assumed at first that only a gentleman's agreement would be necessary, but we know that, once the vote matters, that will not work. Then, Government and Opposition will want as high a vote as possible. This may mean further patronage, Ministerial jobs, ex-Ministers having the right to vote to make up the numbers. All these are possible weapons.

We have heard, in our discussions on the Preamble, about the hopes for great balance in the House of Lords, but that balance will be an early casualty on any crucial question. A number of ex-Ministers and Law Lords could be given the vote. If it is said that only the House of Lords can do this, my reply is that the managers there will have to be that much more careful to ensure a majority, so as to give such peers the benefit of the extended period.

I do not know what the numbers might be, but that they could be large is obvious. When we think of the number of ex-Ministers and ex-Law Lords in any Parliament, these could swing the balance. The optimistic assumptions which have been made about the House of Lords when not a place of power might prove different from the real situation when the House of Lords becomes a place where power is vitally concerned. I should like my hon. Friend to tell us how many such ex-Ministers and ex-Law Lords as a maximum he envisages in the House of Lords in any one Parliament so that we can assess the number to be added to the Government Vote of 105, or whatever it was, and see how it can change that balance in the House of Lords.

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis

If the subsection goes through without amendment, it does not matter what the Government may want. There is virtually no limit, because any of those specified could ask for the extension. It does not say that the Government shall have the right to decide. It could be any number.

§ Mr. Sheldon

This is true. One of the interesting thoughts that come during the hours of night is that the House of Lords might find itself being taken over by the Opposition who then create these Opposition ex-Ministers and there will be an absolute farce in the Palace of Westminster. I accept this is less likely than that the Government will get control and use it for their own purposes. But both possibilities certainly exist.

We all know that attempts to give peers the vote and to prevent peers from voting will be part of the game that will be played, perhaps in unaccustomed circumstances, once the game becomes the rough game that we know it will become. It is all very well having this gentlemanly game they all now play, but once the House of Lords becomes a place of power the gentlemanly game will become an early casualty.

I want to ask my hon. Friend, first, about the numbers involved, and, secondly, about the extended period as the House may for special reasons allow.

§ Mr. Edward M. Taylor (Glasgow, Cathcart)

Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that when considering the question of exemption for sickness and other things in the previous Clause the decision was to be made by a Committee, but, on the question of an extended period, the House as a whole shall decide? It seems very strange.

§ Mr. Sheldon

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing that point to my attention. This seems a yet further anomaly in a much worse than anomalous Bill that a small matter like illness should be decided by a Committee and that, on the question of gerrymandering, the House of Lords would need something more powerful rather than less. This is a point that is well worth putting.

§ Mr. Edward M. Taylor

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will say something about the consequences for the Scottish 829 Law Officers and the Scottish peers. It is very pertinent.

§ Mr. Sheldon

Yes. I will not say that I have appreciated them fully. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows more about that than I do. But that the Government and the official Opposition have not appreciated them fully I accept. This is quite common with so many aspects of the Bill.

The White Paper debates in the House of Lords show the obsession of the House of Lords, quite understandably, with the sharing and, indeed, the grasping of power from the House of Commons. This, above all, really ought to be brought to the notice not only of the House of Commons, because we are more familiar with it, but of the whole country which has perhaps not fully understood the importance of the debates based on wishing to share in the power of the House of Commons. The White Paper debates have shown this again and again.

Finally, I turn to the question of patronage. I have mentioned the various levels of patronage: patronage from this House, patronage of the peers, patronage on Ministers, and patronage of people behaving themselves in the House of Lords. The whole thing is riddled with the desire of the Whips to control the final vote in accordance with their wishes. If we felt sure at any one time that money was not to be part of it, then many of our objections to the Amendment, to Amendments that we have discussed before, to Clauses and Amendments yet to come, would be muted, or at least diminished. Money is at the basis of the discussions that we have had throughout.

The Amendment is most valuable. It has shown that, even in the unobstrusive wording of the subsection, there is danger yet to be found. We should be grateful for the chance to debate it, because it has shown how much greater care is needed in perusing the Bill than some of us, even though we have spent a long time on it, appreciated, and left it to the right hon. Gentleman to find out the possibilities which existed for changes which would be most unwelcome to the Committee.

§ Mr. Airey Neave (Abingdon)

I strongly support my right hon. Friend's 830 Amendment, although I cannot do so with the expert knowledge that he has shown.

In addressing the Committee the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) said that he thought——

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis

My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) asked me to explain, if reference was made to him, that he had to go out to make an urgent phone call, but he will be back as soon as he can.

§ Mr. Neave

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I was only going to say——

§ Mr. Ronald Bell

I wonder whether we could get it clear whether the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) is making a speech on the telephone, which might explain his long absence.

§ Mr. Neave

It would be interesting to know. I was only going to say that he had said that anyone listening to the debate for the first time might find it rather esoteric. After what we have heard already this afternoon many hon. Members might think that that is a very kind word for the debate. This is a fantastic debate on a ridiculous Clause of a ridiculous Bill. The Clause presents the Committee with a fantastic subject for discussion. Why should ex-Ministers have an extended Session in which to put down a voting declaration? I have not seen one of these voting declarations. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will put a prototype of a voting declaration in the Library so that we know what we are talking about and what form it will take.

But we are reaching a ridiculous stage. There is an air of expectancy in the Committee that something will happen soon to the Bill. I will not develop that further except to say that I think the Under-Secretary will agree that it is a fair point that most of us were under the impression that the Home Secretary was in charge of the Bill. Is the right hon. Gentleman likely to be coming along or only when a count is called, as on the last occasion?

If a Minister resigns or, to use the less charitable word of my right hon. Friend, is "dropped" during the course of the Session, should he be given special 831 privileges, extra time—perhaps to recover from the shock of what has happened to him—so that his vote can subsequently be obtained to support the Government in the House of Lords? This is basically what we are talking about. It is all very absurd and wrong because, as the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) has pointed out, it opens up an enormous area of Government manipulation and manœuvre. The Government could give these peers a certain advantage over other peers by giving them this right to vote over an extended time.

It is not clear who will decide the grant of extension of time. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) thought that the Clause indicated that the House of Lords itself would decide rather than this leave of absence committee, or whatever it calls itself. I know that references have been made earlier to the powers of this committee, but who, in fact, will decide on an extension?

What happens if a legal problem arises? Are we saying that if a peer who has put in a voting declaration is not granted extra time he can appeal to the House of Lords as a judicial body? That is one of the sillier situations that could arise.

It is quite true that we have gone long past the gentleman's agreement stage, and we must attack very fiercely any suggestion of special inducements in the form of these extra privileges being held out to ex-Minister peers. Until we know the form of the declaration, who is to vet it, and who is to superintend all the circumstances, it is very difficult for us to debate the matter. The Government's responsibility is not just to say that this is a Bill whose principles have to be worked out by the House of Lords or by some committee, but to tell us about it themselves.

I begin to think that behind the last sentence of the subsection is the Government's intention to give ex-Ministers special privileges to vote for the Government during the ensuing Session. I have no wish to embarrass my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson), but we ought to know whether this provision was part of any agreement. In my view, it is very wrong for the Conservative Party to be involved 832 in such an arrangement, especially when most of the props have been withdrawn. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will indicate whether he agrees with the subsection.

I cannot see any reason for making unique provisions for ex-Ministers. I suspect very strongly that the intention is to bolster up the whole system of a House of Lords based on a built-in Government majority. That is something of which I strongly disapprove, and in that connection I hope that the Minister will reply to the ten questions posed by his hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale. The manner and form of my right hon. Friend's Amendment is extremely valuable in pointing out some of the complications of the Bill.

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis

A moment or two ago I apologised, on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), for his absence. I said that he had been called away to deal with a telephone call to attend another meeting. I can assure hon. Gentlemen that to the best of my knowledge and belief it is not a meeting elsewhere at which the Bill might now well be under discussion.

My hon. Friend raised ten questions and I want to attack him on them, although I do not like to do so in his absence, particularly when I have apologised on his behalf for that absence. With one exception he did not give any reason or any background for his questions. He did not say what was their objective or why he had picked out those ten. We all know that he has been very active in these debates, and I am at a loss to understand why he raised only ten questions. He could have raised at least twenty. I did find another half dozen myself.

Why has my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) not gone into more detail? We all know that he speaks as briefly as possible, but he could have gone into rather more detail. He suggested that the Government of the day might use patronage to get votes. I never thought that he would have dared suggest such a thing. We all know that no Government would do that; and that no one would dare think of offering an ex-Law Lord some job after he had resigned a Ministerial appointment or, as is invariably the case, had 833 been dismissed. We say that these people resign voluntarily, but we know that they are dismissed.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees)

Can my hon. Friend give me an example of a Law Lord being a Minister of the Crown?

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis

The Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General and the Lord Chancellor are Law Lords. If Lord Gardiner were to be dismissed or were to retire, I would regard him as an ex-Law Lord. As the Clause now stands he could, as an ex-Law Lord, opt to go on the voting list, and carry on.

§ Mr. Ronald Bell

The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) must not be put down by his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who is, I feel, thinking of Lords in Appeal in Ordinary, who are in a special category. The hon. Member for West Ham, North is quite right. He should proceed with his point, and elaborate it.

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis

I am very much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I very often attack the legal profession, and it is only right that I should, when occasion offers, pay tribute to it. I have to seek the advice of hon. and learned Members opposite when, on this side, we do not have a Law Officer present. I should like to see with us the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General because, much as I respect the advice of the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General might give different advice—

§ Mr. Edward M. Taylor

Is the hon. Member aware that not just today but on every day since the Government came to power we have not had on the Treasury Bench a Scottish Law Officer because there is not one? Who is to answer the very important Scottish legal points arising from the Amendment?

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis

This is a tragedy, but there have not been any legal gentlemen on the Opposition Front Bench 834 either—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—from Scotland.

§ Mr. Peyton

The hon. Gentleman is being exceedingly unfair to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson), whose qualities I am sure he would not wish to challenge. My right hon. and learned Friend comes not from Scotland but from as short a distance away as Epsom. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) wished to make a pithy protest, which he felt sure that the hon. Gentleman would wish to endorse, against the absence of any Scottish Law Officers to advise the Government on the very important issues concerning Scotland which arise on the Amendment.

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis

I immediately corrected myself. I rarely make a mistake, but on this occasion I said, "no legal gentlemen". I then corrected it and said, "from Scotland". I accept that we would have liked someone here to advise us on the issues affecting Scotland, because it is important to the subsection.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale did not go into as much detail as he might have done. He referred to possible patronage and implied, without giving details, what could happen. He mentioned something about salaries. I interjected and said that there are things other than salaries. One of these law leaders or ex-Ministers could be dismissed as unsatisfactory in his Ministerial office, and he might then hold on until a ticklish voting situation arose. The Whips might then say, "We need a few extra votes". The ex-Minister might well say, "There is a job going as chairman of one of the nationalised boards. It is a much better paid job than the post I had as Minister. If you can offer me the chairmanship of one of the boards, I might well consider asking the House to give special reasons why I should be allowed this opportunity." Would those be special reasons? If the ex-Minister said that he wanted to take on a job as one of the advisers to the Industrial Court, would that be a special reason which would allow him to seek this extension of time in which to apply for voting privileges?

The subsection says that this is subject to subsection (3) of section 3 of this Act". 835 This means that it is subject to the age limit of 72. Does this mean, as the subsection stands, that if one of these ex-Law Lords or ex-Ministers in the Lords, having held on long enough and having not received the patronage which he had hoped for—some sinecure or well-paid job—finds that he is reaching the age of 72 and that he would not be able to ask for the period to be extended for special reasons—I see that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is screwing up his face as though I have not made the point clear.

§ Mr. Merlyn Rees

indicated dissent.

§ Mr. Lewis

Could an ex-Minister or an ex-Law Lord who had been dismissed from office or who had resigned and who within a month had not exercised his option to claim his vote say, "I have special reasons why the period should be extended. The special reasons are that I am 71 today and will be 72 in 12 months' time and must get my application in"? Can he use as a special reason the fact that it happens to be his seventy-first anniversary?

One month is the period suggested as the normal period in which the extension should be asked for. That period is ample enough. Nowadays we hear much about a cooling off period of 28 days, "In Place of Strife", and all that. If an industrial worker is to be allowed a cooling off period of 28 days, 28 days should be long enough for an ex-Minister or an ex-Law Lord to cool off.

§ Mr. Peyton

Does the hon. Gentleman think that some of his hon. Friends now missing from the Front Bench would require 28 full days to cool off?

§ Mr. Lewis

The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), who is always helpful, will agree that this does not apply exclusively to ex-Ministers on this side of the House. There are also ex-Ministers on the benches opposite. No doubt the ex-Ministers on both sides will be queueing up if and when the occasion arises for them to want one of these peerages of first creation. I imagine that this would apply to some of the Liberals, none of whom is now present. If within a month these ex-Ministers could not obtain some plum directorships or other well-paid employment, they might well think, "I have not been able within a 836 month to obtain a directorship or other well-paid job. I will ask the Patronage Secretary what he can do about it. Can he put me on a board? Can he give me one of these nationalised chairmanship jobs? In exchange I will offer my vote. I will tell him, 'You have only 28 days'." If the Amendment is not carried, such an ex-Minister would be able to say, "I can put forward special reasons why I should be allowed to seek my voting rights after the expiration of 28 days." He might give as reasons the fact that by that time he would have attained the age of 71, or that most of the sinecures he was aiming for had gone, or that time was running on, or that there was likely to be a change of Government and that even on the political stakes he might well have lost the chance of getting another well-paid job.

There is a need for the Under-Secretary to explain what the special reasons are which will permit such a peer to have a cooling-off period of more than 28 days. The Minister for Economic Development and Production, or the Minister "In Place of Strife"—I do not know what they call her; they change the name from time to time—no doubt has hit upon this period of 28 days, because it seems to be occurring now in everything. Twenty-eight days is reckoned to be a sufficient period for an industrial worker to cool off. The subsection in fact does not say "28 days". It says "one month", which is near enough 28 days.

I think that one month should be a sufficient period for such a noble Lord who had previously been a Minister—perhaps the Minister of Economic Production, whatever they might call the Minister for Strife—to cool off in. She might well say, after this period in the House of Lords, "I have begun my period. I have had my first creation. Having had my first creation, I shall now wait for the month to see what happens". She might then succeed Mr. George Woodcock—who knows? She might be called Lord Barbara of Castle or Lord Castle of Barbara. She might then think to herself, "There is a good job going on the industrial relations board". She might then wait for a month and then not be offered the job. Then she might go to the Patronage Secretary and those people who run the patronage set-up and suggest, "George is getting old. I am much younger than 837 he is. As we have now got to opt for it before the age of 72, what about it? Can you give me this industrial relations board position? If you can, I will wait and then I will offer my vote to you".

But, of course, there might be the other side of the matter. I think it was my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State who shook his head when I mentioned Law Lords. But I can remember one case of a Law Lord very well. He was not at the time a Law Lord; he was the Attorney-General in this place. He then went to another place, where he was an ex-Minister. He then resumed practising at the Bar, and for a time I do not think he knew whether he was on one side or the other. I think he switched backwards and forwards and then went on the cross-bench, where I believe he still is. Eventually he went into business and he now has a lot of directorships [Interruption.]

I am talking about Lord Shawcross. I did not think any hon Member, particularly in the legal profession, would have wanted me to name this gentleman. I thought it was plain enough. However, if the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) is so backward about the legal profession, I will tell him that it was Lord Shawcross who was an Attorney-General and who subsequently went to another place. I am not saying that he would do as I have suggested, but he might wait 28 days and if there were an election pending he might think "Let us wait. A Lord Chancellor might be needed. The other party may be short of legal gentlemen, and if I switch sides I can become Lord Chancellor."

I am not denigrating the legal profession, but it is a fact that the greatest prize in the legal profession is the position of Lord Chancellor of England. Let us think of a name which is not connected with the legal profession. Let us take, for example, Lord Smith. I do not think the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) is a member of the legal profession. Let us suppose that we had a Lord Smith. I can imagine him going to another place as an ex-Minister, or even not as an ex-Minister, and saying, "I have got a month. If I wait long enough and do not offer my vote to either side, as there will be an election one day and as I am a qualified member of the legal profession 838 they may offer the job to me as they are short of legal gentlemen."[Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh but, in tact, this happened quite recently when there was a shortage of legal gentlemen in another place. Lord Gardiner was brought in and made Lord Chancellor. This could well happen. Therefore, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne on this point.

5.45 p.m.

This meeting which my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale is attending is taking much longer than I believe was expected. The meeting evidently has found trouble not only with the Clause but probably with the whole Bill.

§ Mr. Ronald Bell

Does not the hon. Gentleman think that there are perhaps special reasons for this extension of time of the meeting which his hon. Friend is attending?

§ Mr. Lewis

I am sticking religiously to the Clause, because I should be out of order if I were to do otherwise. The Clause refers to a period of one month and it might be that the meeting which my hon. Friend is attending will last for such a period; I do not know. All I hope is that the meeting reaches a conclusion soon. Unfortunately, my hon. Friend is not present so that I shall have to attack him in his absence.

It is a pity that he never went into detail to explain why he selected those 10 questions. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne raised a number of points, but my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale did not go into detail. Why did he select the question of patronage and mention only the salary of ex-Ministers? Did he mean that the £2,000 was the deciding factor? It might be £2,000 plus. One of the reasons why the figure of £2,000 was originally suggested was to relate it to other salaries. We have now had the report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes on higher executives' pay, and this might be used as an argument.

To get back to the Amendment, which seeks to leave out or within such extended period as the House may for special reasons allow". I should like the Minister to explain what this means. I may support this Amendment, but I would not want to do so if my hon. Friend could explain 839 the meaning of these words to me. Do they mean that the special reasons will include sickness? I shall be surprised if they do, because I believe there is an earlier provision covering sickness. Suppose we were to have a Tory Government. I hope this will not happen, but it could do. Such a Government might last a few weeks or months, and then there would be a flood of Tory ex-Ministers fleeing the country, perhaps to one of the warmer climates. Would it then be possible for them to use as a special reason the fact that they had been away from the House for a period longer than 28 days? When we discussed the previous Clause we were told that reasons such as leave of absence would be covered. Does this apply only to Ministers? The subsection refers to Ministers. Are we giving special privileges to these ex-Ministers and ex-Law Lords, and anybody who was on the Ministerial payroll?

I have just realised something; this is another question that I must ask my hon. Friend. Subsection (1,a) refers to any office in respect of which salary is payable under the Ministerial Salaries Consolidation Act, 1965". Does that apply to the whips? Whips are paid. Some whips in this place might do their job so badly that they are promoted to the House of Lords. Will they have 28 days, or a month, in which to decide whether they should go on the voting list? Perhaps they, too, can ask for an extended period for special reasons. Suppose that the whips did a tour round the world on the high salaries received while they were whips and then returned and decided that for special reasons they should ask for the vote. The provision could apply to anyone on the Ministerial salary list. There are about 110 Ministers in this House; I do not know about the other place.

Subsection (1,b) refers to any high judicial office within the meaning of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act…". Perhaps my legal friends can help me here. I assume that the phrase "any high judicial office" refers to the law lords, judges, lords of appeal and other legal luminaries. Let us take the case of a judge who is a peer of first creation. He is there a month and then says, "Being a judge, it would be hardly the 840 thing for me to claim my vote." He would wait, knowing that after the month had passed he might be able to put forward special reasons why he should be allowed the extended period. What would be the special reasons in his case? I assume that he would say that he did not want to claim his vote at the time because he was still a judge and that taking an active part in politics was not quite the thing and it was not wise for him to take his vote.

But he may have political opinions, although I do not say that there are any judges who have. He may see the chance of the Government which he supports, or opposes, being in need of his vote, or he may wish to vote against the Government. He may say, "I shall claim the benefit of the provision about special reasons and claim my vote." I assume that one of the special reasons would be that he never opted to use his vote within the 28 days because he thought that it would be infra dig. He might say that he did not want the vote at the time because it would have interfered with his impartiality as a judge.

What happens if 12 or 18 months afterwards—[Interruption.]—I do not know whether the meeting elsewhere has finished; probably it has and soon my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale will return from No. 10 Downing Street, or from wherever the meeting was held—the judge says, "I have decided to opt for using my vote. I shall ask for the provision about special reasons to be invoked"? How will the Government respond? If he declined to have the vote within the month when the conditions were such that he could have claimed it without difficulty and then a year or two afterwards there has been no change in his situation, will he be able to say, "I claim the vote for special reasons" and put forward the same reasons which he could have put forward two or three years before? Will they be allowed as special reasons?

The Bill allows ex-Ministers and ex-Law Lords privileges which are not allowed to other peers. This leads me to my desire to protect the right of the ordinary—if I can call them that with no disrespect—noble peers who are not ex-Ministers or legal luminaries. Will certain people be given privileges which are not given to ordinary peers? As the 841 Bill is drafted, that would seem to be so. Unless the Amendment is accepted, the ordinary peer will be at a disadvantage in relation to ex-Ministerial peers and legal peers. That is not fair. Why should we deprive the ordinary peer of first creation or any peer entitled to vote, and allow ex-Ministers and former and current Law Lords to opt for the vote at any time that they like provided they have not reached the age of 72?

Unless we have a satisfactory explanation from the Minister in answer to the ten points put forward briefly by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale, the half-dozen points put forward even more briefly by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, and the half-dozen points on which I have only touched, I must support the Amendment in the Division Lobby.

§ Mr. Ronald Bell

The Amendment is no mere verbal finesse but raises a point of real substance about which the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) has spoken very lucidly and on which he has put forward some valuable points. However, he would be the first to agree that he has not covered all the points.

The broad aspect which appeals to the Committee is that the subsection appears to confer a special privilege—or "special indulgence" would perhaps be the right expression—in the arrangements made for all other peers than those comprehended within the subsection. The significance is that the Bill proposes a Chamber with certain balances. One thinks of the expression "checks and balances", but there are very few checks and even the balances may prove illusory particularly without the Amendment. Without some discipline, the Government might enjoy an excessive patronage.

One of the checks is that in Clause 5 and those provisions relating to the voting qualification. The ordinary member of the upper House will have to go through certain drills. They are not very exacting: something will have to be done in one month. That is normally time enough for politicians to collect their wits—although some have been known to take much longer—and there is considerable bipartisanship over this Measure. 842 Clause 5(2) would exempt ex-Ministers and ex-Law Lords from the rigour of the temporal provisions applying to others. There are many objections to that, and the general objection is its effect on patronage.

But there are certain particular questions which need to be answered, although the state of the benches opposite, particularly the Front Bench, makes me despair of getting answers. With this Government, one cannot tell where answers will come from, but I am puzzled to know—

§ Mr. Peyton

Has my hon. and learned Friend observed that on the Front Bench opposite there is no Minister—only a Whip, who would not normally speak? In view of the importance which the Government appear to attach to the Bill, one would expect at least one Minister constantly there. One is immensely sympathetic to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who has just this moment returned, for the undue share of the burden which he is expected to shoulder.

§ Mr. Bell

That is a valid point, which was cured in part as my hon. Friend made it. We all have great sympathy with the hon. Gentleman, who has to listen to all our speeches. This gives his replies a continuity of argument but must also impose a physical and perhaps mental or nervous strain which we should have liked distributed more widely among Her Majesty's present advisers.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) first mentioned the uncertainty latent in the phrase "special reasons". This is one of those troublesome phrases which has appeared in other Acts and always led to trouble. This Bill has no definition and my right hon. Friend asks whether the special reasons were ad hominem. Will the Under-Secretary of State be telling us, in whatever tongue he finds congenial, whether they are? I suggest that they should not be but should be inherent in the nature of the fault. After all, we have a lot of consideration of this phrase in the road traffic Acts, a good deal of judicial consideration has been given to it and some interpretation has been reached. In the absence of any special provision in the Bill, I presume that those interpretations will apply here.

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis

How do the road traffic Acts explain the phrase? That will help us to decide—

§ The Temporary Chairman (Sir Beresford Craddock)

Order. We are not discussing the road traffic Acts, with respect.

§ Mr. Bell

It was an attractive invitation, but not one to which I propose to accede, beyond what is relevant. For one thing, the last road traffic Act contains a definition which removes the parallel.

I was addressing myself to the general consideration of the phrase which had emerged from those decisions. In the case of Whittall and Kirby, the leading case on the meaning of "special reasons", it was said that it should be a circumstance peculiar to the neglect as distinguished from the offender or the person guilty of the neglect. It was said: A special reason is one which is special to the facts of the particular case, that is, special to the facts which constitute the offence"— or, in the context of this Bill, the neglect. Financial hardship has been held not to be a special reason. This answers some of the questions of the hon. Member for West Ham, North, who I thought over-stressed the significance of money—although I see that there are financial considerations. But it has been held that financial hardship is not a special reason.

Nor is a long and good record. Nor is forgetfulness or carelessness. That has been held not only in the context of the road traffic Acts but also in the almost exactly similar context of the national insurance Acts, where there are time limits for the making of claims, and the commissioners have had to consider, in an administrative context—as close as one can get to a political context—what constitutes a special reason for delay. It was held that neither forgetfulness nor carelessness could help.

Going back to traffic, it is not a special reason that the motorist realises his incapacity and stops his car—this I am sure could be construed by analogy in the context we are considering—or that the car is stationary and incapable of being started, or that the accused is a lorry driver and drives for his living.

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman saying that they are or are not special reasons?

§ Mr. Bell

They are not special reasons. On the other hand, if a peer, unknown to himself, was suffering from diabetes and had taken only a moderate amount of drink, that would be a special reason, as I apply the road traffic decisions to the provisions of Clause 5.

The Committee will realise that there is ample room for varying interpretations to be applied as to what would amount to a special reason. I at once concede that we are here dealing with the House of Lords, which is the supreme court of appeal from all other courts, and who better than they to decide on special reasons? In matters of administrative delays and the personal variations of members putting forward various reasons for delay, this exalted machinery might seem to be a little detached and too grand, but, fortunately, their lordships recently decided that they were not bound by their former decisions, and that the doctrine of stare decisis would in future be determined with laxity in their lordships' House. I suppose this is what the Under-Secretary and the Government had in mind, if they had anything in mind—which I begin to doubt. They have no doubt realised that, because the House of Lords has departed from the rule of stare decisis, it might operate this provision without getting into a more absurd mess than it otherwise would.

I shall expect from the Minister an answer to all these questions. I hope that he will not give the answer which he gave in the last debate, that what the Government wanted was flexibility. This is a splendid answer for a Minister who does not know the answer, and who knows that those under whose instruction he is acting do not know the answer and do not care anyway, because they are determined to drive the Bill through without amendment.

The whole procedure is like a charade; inflexibility in debate and flexibility in conception. Hon Members move Amendments and speeches are made from either side all supporting the Amendment. We know that no one will speak against this Amendment until the Minister replies, and he alone will oppose it and talk about flexibility, and so hope to avoid answering the ten questions put to him by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), the points put forward by 845 my right hon. Friend, by the hon. Member for West Ham, North, and those which I am engaged in putting forward. We shall be told that the Government want flexibility; they have given careful thought to it; they do not know what it means but they are sure that it will work very well. What that means is that the Government are absolutely resolved—it is the only thing which they see with absolute perspicacity, clarity and determination—not to have a Report stage. For this reason the hon. Gentleman will oppose the Amendment.

I come back to the more general questions of substance which arise on the Amendment.

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis

The hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned only one special reason, the man suffering from diabetes who has had something to drink. Is this the only special reason that those of their Lordships who are ex-Ministers will be allowed to bring forward?

§ Mr. Bell

The special reasons that I considered were confined to drinks, drugs and diabetes simply because I was considering decisions under the road traffic Acts which tended to be about those matters. It is under the road traffic Acts that we have the advantage of decisions of the High Court on the meaning of "special reasons". It is not for me to say, and I do not intend to say, whether the special reasons which will arise on Clause 5 in another place would be reasons about drink, drugs and diabetes. Obviously, I cannot say that; I would hope not, but we must be prepared for the worst; and I was trying to define what I thought might happen if this unhappily came about—

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis

The hon. and learned Gentleman has misunderstood my point. I understood entirely his point about drinking and diabetes, but, as I have castigated my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), I was hoping that I should not have to castigate the hon. and learned Gentleman for not going into more detail about other special reasons which could be used by noble 846 Lords as an argument for an extended period.

§ Mr. Bell

I see myself becoming a whipping boy between you, Sir Beresford, and the hon. Member for West Ham, North, castigated or flagellated by one if I go into the special reasons and by the other if I do not. I must leave these details on one side and come back to the main considerations, as distinct from the interpretative considerations, which arise from the Amendment.

The purpose of the Clause is to accommodate what have been described as ex-Ministers and ex-Law Lords. There has been too much emphasis in our debate on the Law Lords and the ex-Law Lords. The side-note to Clause 5 reads: Voting rights of Ministers and other officers. The Clause is really about Ministers. Although the wording unquestionably includes those who hold or have held high judicial office within the terms of the appellate jurisdiction Acts, I think that they are an addition and that the Clause to an overriding extent is about ex-Ministers. The whole conception behind the Bill is a welfare service or safety net for ex-Ministers. That, no doubt, is the reason for the interest shown by the Secretary of State for Social Services, whom we have seen from time to time in the Committee—not for some little time—

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

He is almost statute-barred now.

§ Mr. Bell

As my right hon. Friend says, he is almost statute-barred. He would have to show a reason if that were so—I hope that it would not be drink, drugs and diabetes. Basically, the subsection which is sought to be amended is a benefit clause, a charitable disposition in favour of ex-Ministers, those whom the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale—whom I am happy to see back among us, even if perhaps only fleetingly—has described as having been dropped during the life of a Parliament. I assume that he was referring to those Ministers who had been dropped, b