Free contraception
Sir: Although the Upper House has at last given up its demands that, con trary to the government's policy, contraceptives should be issued without charge, their previous determination to thus alter the whole nature of Sir Keith Joseph's Bill is a disturbing phenomenom for several reasons. For this decision to battle for free contraceptives is but part of a noticeable trend in the House of Lords which threatens to undermine its usefulness as a constitutional safeguard, which is its only raison d'etre. In the past the value of the House of Lords has been that it stands as a barrier to allowing any party, by virtue only of a temporary majority in the Commons from exercising a dictatorship over the nation in order to fundamentally change the constitution, without evidence of sufficient popular support.
In the recent past this constitutional value of the second chamber was appreciated by the country as a whole and notable successes were scored — the Lords achieved a modification of the 1884 Reform Bill for exampie, and successfully vetoed Gladstone's 1893 Home Rule Bill. The people were usually able to see when the Lords were acting from the best interests of the nation or merely manoeuvring for party advantage, as is shown by Asquith's victory in the 1910 elections which he fought on the reform of the upper House after its persistent blocking of Liberal legislation at the behest of Arthur Balfour.
Yet what have we now? The House of Lords vetoing proposals passed by the Commons because they were not radical enough! The constitutional safeguard against excessive change is attempting to create a small revolution in the National Health System far more drastic than the re-organisation scheme being considered by the Minister for Social Services — and a singularly nasty revolution at that.
I wonder whether the House of Lords was activated in its recent vetoes by an earnest desire to make the people's lot lighter by sparing them 20p a time for contraceptives — or was it perhaps that the Lords have become infected with that rather repugnant utilitarian Liberalism that was such an unpleasant feature of Melbourne's 1834-39 Whig Ministries, and which has been rearing its ugly head with especial force in recent years — and especially within the Labour Party. And now it seems, in the House of Lords also.
Here we have one Liberal peer decl aiming that it is laudable to exert the fullest possible pressure and inducements to the poorer classes to prevent them having children in order to save the State a lot of money. I had always understood that, in Britain anyway. the State existed for its citizens — yes, and its potential citizens, rather than vice versa. Shades of Edwin Chadwick! And shades of the workhouse. Bully the poor this way and that; anything to avoid actually incurring expense to help them raise future good citizens.
As for the other main argument em ployed by the Lords in favour of free contraceptives — that they must be free or the poor will not avail themselves of the opportunity — I find that equally repulsive. It is an insult to the poorer sections of this community to Imply that they will refuse to act with S sense of responsibility if they have to fork out 20p every so often to do so. The Lords amendment is also con trary to natural justice, in that whilst contraceptives would be free of charge, those suffering from illness and disease would still be expected to Pay for their prescriptions. This would Inevitably lead to the extreme of middle-class housewives queuing up for their free contraceptives so as to Put what they save on another mouth to feed (that soulless phrase) towards a second car or stereo equipment, Whilst the unemployed and the invalid have to pay for the drugs they may need to keep them alive. Of course there is much suffereing caused amongst the genuinely deprived by unwanted pregnancies; but the solution must be sought by humility and proper regard for the dignity of the poor rather than by the puerile and offensive scheme advocated by the upper House.
And what are the grounds of the Peers of the Realm for acting in their arbitrary fashion? Are the public up in arms at the thought of prescription Charges for contraceptives? Are they Marching in protest on Downing Street? I think not.
So the Lords have taken it upon themselves to challenge this bill without any evidence of public support. They have acted on ideological grounds. purely on their own initiative to attempt to totally transform a bill Passed by the elected representatives of the people. In so doing they have Pointed the way towards a bleaker future, and to a further interference in the private life and habits of the population by prying politicians and civil servants.
The Lords had better be wary. They
are undermining their own claims to the sufferance of the nation. Constitutionally speaking, the upper House has a duty to be "reactionary." The Lords seem to have abandoned this duty. Their current phony liberalism may be signing away their effective political existence — which would be a bad thing for the freedom of the nation.
The public will not be fooled for ever — though it may seem like it. What Chamberlain, Rosebery and Lloyd George all failed to achieve — the rejection of the upper House by the electorate — the Lords may yet accomplish by themselves.
David Patrick Hill 14 Park Hall Avenue, Walton, Chesterfield, Derbyshire
Previous page
