BOOKS OF THE DAY
A Tripod Parliament ?
Can Parliament Survive ? By Christopher Hollis. (Hollis and Carter 93.) THE writer of this suggestive and provocative volume was elected M.P. for Devizes in 1945, and, in regard to this particular subject and others, he knows very well what he is talking about. It may be that he raises more problems than he solves ; it may be that many readers, perhaps most, will disagree with his main thesis ; but all of them, quite certainly, will get their minds clearer by reading what he has to say. Broadly the doctrine he expounds is that Parliament is losing prestige steadily, that the average man pro- foundly distrusts party politicians, that the House of Commons is overloaded with business and has to scamp it, and that the whole system is in danger of breaking down completely. What then is to be done? Mr. Hollis does not believe in geogriphical devolution— Home Rule for Scotland, Home Rule for Wales—wherein he is certainly right. What has impressed him is the problem raised by nationalisation, both the refusal of Ministers to answer any detailed questions about the working of the nationalised industries, for which they are ultimately responsible, and the anomalous relationship of trade unions to an employer who is, in effect, the State. His solution, based on suggestions raised in the course of a debate on the Address M 1919, and endorsed by Mr. Churchill in a Romanes Lecture in 193o, is to remove all industrial questions from the House of Commons and hand them over in the first instance to a third House of Parliament, the House of Industry—in the first instance, because it is suggested that the status of the House of Industry should be like that of the Church Assembly, which has the power to legislate for the Church of England, subject to the right of Parliament to veto any of its enactments.
Now all this is very interesting, and if I express reservations about Mr. Hollis's analysis of the present position of Parliament, and still more about his proposed remedy, I would not for a moment dissuade anyone from reading his book ; on the contrary, as I have said, to read it, with or without agreement, will have a valuable clarifying effect. What I feel is that in his desire to press a particular reform of Parliament Mr. Hollis has overstated the case for reform. I do not believe Parliament (by which both he and I mean primarily the House of Commons) is in as bad a way as he thinks it is. Of course it is bad for any Government to have a normal majority of 200 ; of course there has been a gross excess of legislation • of course tome measures, like the Town and Country Planning Act, have been too complicated and abstruse for the average Member to grasp. But grave decisions are not normally taken, as Mr. Hollis almost seems to suggest, at 5.30 in the morning ; there are not more than about half a dozen all-night sittings in a year. It is not the case that Parliament is virtually impotent ; Parliamentary revolt compelled the Government to reverse a decision on conscription in twenty-four hours (the fact that logic compelled the rebels to agree to its being re-reversed some months later is immaterial). I do not believe that M.P.s are so hopelessly overworked that after election they hardly read any books. I know one, at any rate, who has not only read but written two admirable books, carried on his own profession and served ably and conscientiously in the House. So does Mr. Hollis ' • for I am speaking of Mr. Hollis himself. And if Parliament has, in fact, fallen so low in public esteem it is odd that it should still stand so high in public interest—as evidenced by the crowds in the lobbies, the demand for seats in the galleries, the record circulation of Hansard and other manifestations.
But let us assume Mr. Hollis to be right here after all, and come to his proposed remedy. To begin with, if the prestige of Parlia- ment is a matter of importance, what is going to be the effect on that of tht removal of all industrial questions—with which is bound up virtually the whole of the economic life of the country—from the floor of the House of Commons? It is true that, as explained, the House will retain ultimate control, but either it will endorse the great majority of the decisions of the House of Industry—in which case prestige will largely be transferred from the old House to the new—or it will reject them, in which case there will be a disastrous clash of jurisdictions. (It must be remembered that decisions of the Church Assembly, which Mr. Hollis takes as his model, must be either accepted or vetoed by the House of Commons, not amended.) There is another point to consider. In 1919 and 193o, to which Mr. Hollis refers, there was no nationalised industry except the Post Office. Even public utility corporations were in
their infancy. The case is substantially altered today ; and whether nationalised industries and private enterprise concerns, even in great units like Unilever or I.C.I., could with advantage be handed over to the House of Industry to be dealt with on the same footing may well be questioned. Thirdly, Mr. Hollis, so far as I can see, makes no provision for the consumer in the House of Industry. Of course every producer is at the same time a consumer, but it is in the former capacity that he is to sit in the new House, to represent pro- ducers' interests primarily. No ; though our present constitution may work badly, and in many respects it does, I cannot feel convinced that Mr. Hollis's plan is an improvement. On the whole I believe territorial representation, with all its defects, is right. It results in a Chamber which represents a better cross-section of the nation than any other method is likely to produce. We want, no doubt, a better House of Commons. We most certainly want a reformed House of Lords. I don't believe we want a Third Chamber.
I have said that Mr. Hollis raises more problems than he solves. Therein he renders a most valuable service. They need to be raised, and they are raised most arrestingly here. Mr. Hollis's solution may be the right one. I do not myself think it is. But if not, then it is essential to find a better one. For the problems are there, and they cannot be just left unsolved. WILSON HARRIS.
Previous page
