A SPECTATOR 'S NOTEBOOK
THOUGH the Prime Minister declined on Tuesday to say whether the conversations on the reform of the House of Lords had finally broken down I have not found anyone who believes with any confidence that they have not. If they have, a heavy responsibility will lie somewhere, for by all accounts the differences had been so narrowed down that statesmen should have been capable of bridging the gulf, if politicians could not. I suggested last week that an agreement that would give the Lords a delaying-power less indeed than they enjoy under the present Parliament Act, but substantially greater than they will have if the amending Bill goes through (as it is bound to), would be something worth achieving. I have every reason to believe that the time I mentioned—twelve months for the Second Reading of aBill in the Commons or nine months for the second Third Reading, whichever is the longer, aecurately represents the Government's offer. What do the Conservatives gain by rejecting this ? They argue, no doubt, that if they accept it they will be honourably debarred from restoring the full two-years' veto if and when they return to power. Personally I am a believer in the two years, not the one year, but the chance of an agreement that would cover the whole constitution of the House of Lords as well as its powers is something that should be sacrificed only after the deepest heart-searching. If the door is not finally and irrevocably banged there ought to be second and third and fourth thoughts still. If there is no agreement the Lords will certainly be worse off for a time, and it may be a very considerable time.
Previous page
