HOUSE OF LORDS
Market & Migrant
HUGH REAY
Last week the long summer season at the House of Lords reached its climax, when 108 Noble Lords spent 29 hours in a three day debate, giving their opinions and reasons on the subject of entry into the Common Market. It was a great show. It had the best cast list the company can provide. And the discipline of the performance was most impressive. Speakers were arranged in printed lists in their order of appearance, as is the usual custom, and these were fixed before the first day began. Yet a bare half dozen scratched as the debate proceeded. Peers turned up when they were due on, observed the courtesy of staying for some at least of the rest of the debate, some stayed for most of it and there were 50 or so left to hear the winding-up speeches at 12.30 on Thursday.
The quality of the debate was exceptionally high, and its range very wide. Of the 108 speakers, three only delivered themselves as undecided, 10 were against entry, four disguised the balance of their opinion, one was incomprehensible aud the remainder, 89 of them, declared their support for the present policy of the Government. If anyone, now or later, wishes to honour the minority they were: Lords Beswick, Greenwood, Shinwell, Blyton, Soper, Wynne-Jones, Granville of Eye, Buckinghamshire, Macleod of Fuinary and — the only Conservative — Lord Lauderdale. Those undecided were Lords Shepherd, Auckland, and Monkton of Brenchley; and those who kept their last card in their pocket were Lords Delacourt-Smith, Brockway, Ritchie-Calder, and Davies of Leek.
Of those who spoke against entry Lord Beswick made an excellent speech, a relaxed and melancholy survey of all the areas of doubt in the case for the Common Market. He focused also on differences in the past. "Cousin Jack went out to Australia," he said. "1 have never read of the youngest son setting out to make a fortune in the Saar basin." Lord Shinwell gave a tour de force of theatrical contempt. His often repeated theme on the subject is "I have nothing against the Common Market countries. I just want nothing to do with them." and he brought the house down with his suggestion that the flag Europe would be flying if we entered the Common Market would not be the Union Jack, would not be the Tricolour, Oh no, it would be the skull and crossbones.
On the other side, apart from the three Cabinet Ministers, and the junior Ministers, the Debate produced such famous Europeans as Lords Gladwyn, Harlech and George-Brown. From the previous Government there was the testimony of Lords Shackleton, Chalfont, Longford, Kennet, and of course, George-Brown, that the present opportunity was acceptable to the Labour party. Perhaps Lord Longford dealt most simply with the argument on the terms. "In talking of 1967 I have absolutely no doubt in my mind (although nothing can be proved about something that did not come to pass) that in fact the terms now available would have been accepted by the Labour Government in 1967. I cannot prove it; there is not a document that I can quote, but I am just quite sure that that would have been so." From Conservative Governments of the past reappeared Rab Butler, Lennox-Boyd that was, and Lord Thorneycroft. Some were converts, and recounted their conversion — Lords Inchyra, Boyd of Merton and Caldecote, who had been pleased when the negotiations failed twice before, and Lady Gaitskell. All recognised that there hadn't been such a decision to take since 1939. There were lawyers Hailsham, Stow, Hill and Goodman to reconcile us on sovereignty, Lord Stokes to assure us about the competitive condition of the car manufacturers, and Lord Robens, making his maiden speech after 10 years in the House and looking every inch the statesman he might have been, to speak for the nationalised industries. There were agricultualists, Scottish industrialists, Sainsbury the retailer, diplomats to excuse our farewell to the Commonwealth.
There were statistics on international bread prices, and the price of pool milk. The House of Lords is not strong in economists. Lord Balogh was absent. but Lord Robbins in his way did justice for both sides. Not only did his natural pessimism give a dramatic balance to his arguments in favour of entry but he had the integrity to make it plain that economics alone does not decide the issue, one way or the other. Lord Boothby seemed to have calmed down about fish, and Robert Blake was there to bring in the Peelites. He explained how the last comparable peacetime event was the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846. As he Said " Arguments of the sort we hear today were used at that time about prices and costs. There was also a great deal of recrimination about who had said what to whom, when, and what promises had been made. But those are not the things that we remember today."
There were three striking characteristics of the committee stage of the Immigration Bill on its way •through the House of Lords — the persistence of a demand that the Commonwealth should be recognized in the form of privileged treatment for Commonwealth immigrants, the weakness of the Government in the face of this demand, and a tendency to wish to set out policies in a way which emphasises their appearance rather than their effect.
The sentimental case in favour of the Commonwealth was deployed from most sections of the political spectrum. Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, for example, a rather distinguished, and rather independent Socialist, Chairman of the Consumer Council, and as he tells us, grandson of the first Prime Minister of New South Wales, talked about " our fellow British subjects " and said: "My view is that they should stand with the Englishman rather than the foreigner. I do not think one needs to put forward any argument. I do not think there are any arguments except sentimental ones." Lord Gore-Booth who sits as an Independent and six years ago was High Commissioner in India said: "In the Commonwealth we are dealing with people to whom we owe a particular obligation." Conservative ex-Ministers like Lord Boyle and Lord Boyd of Merton added their own wish to recognize the 'special link,' and phrases like "those who are proud to accept the Queen as head of the Commonwealth," "these friends of ours," even "our people," were common and quite insufficient to designate the political background of the speaker. The Liberals were perhaps the most active, to judge by the number of amendments they tabled, but then they see the question of the Commonwealth, whether or not linked to the question of immigration, as one which they can use to distinguish themselves from the two major parties. This must be connected with the fact that they have never had to compromise their principles in office.
The Government front-bench frequently looked uncomfortable, and from time to time isolated. They lost a division at the beginning of the Committee Stage on an amendment which, if allowed to stand, will ensure that no Commonwealth immigrant already here will lose his right to unconditional permanent stay. They would almost certainly have lost another, on the famous question of police registration, had they not sensed defeat and retreated. After three hours of debate in which they were hardly supported by a single speaker, Lord Windlesham, saying elegantly "Your Lordships will appreciate that it is not for me, standing at this Box, smartly to reverse the policy of the Government with a wave of the hand," offered consultations during the recess to attempt to reach a compromise if the amendments would be withdrawn. From soundings which Lord Jellicoe had hurriedly made when he saw the way the wind was blowing, Lord Windlesham plainly knew the offer would be accepted when he made it.
It was most interesting, during the course of this Bill, to notice how the preference for fiction, because it is not on the retreat, begins to penetrate even further into everyone's approach. The Home Secretary, during the Commons stage offered as an alternative to deporting dependants of a person against whom an order for deportation had been made, a procedure of 'supervised departure' which would have the same effect but would avoid, it was claimed, the same stigma. This suggestion has not been repeated by Lord Windlesham, so perhaps the Government have appreciated that even in this field this was carrying hypocrisy too far. But Lord Windlesham provoked no disagreement from the House when he appealed to them to agree that a quota system for regulating entry was an impossibility on grounds of appearance — "quotas to individual Commonwealth countries; tiny numbers in relation to the population of their country. I wonder if noble Lords know what the system looks like at the moment. Let us consider a country the size of India, with 550 million people. Of those some 780 people in all were admitted with category ' A ' and ' B ' vouchers last year. That is what the quota system looks like." It is the appearance, only the appearance, which everyone counts.
Previous page
