§ Q5. Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister if he will initiate all-party talks to consider the functions and constitution of the House of Lords, with particular reference to the future of hereditary peers.
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir.
§ Mr. HamiltonDoes the Prime Minister recollect that the Preamble to 237 the 1911 Parliament Act suggested that reform of the House of Lords should he undertaken very quickly? In view of the fact that more than 50 years have elapsed since then, does the right hon. Gentleman not think that it is time that we started to modernise along the corridor of the Palace of Westminster? Does he realise that a quorum along the corridor is three, and does he not feel appalled at the prospect of three nonagenarians armed with ear trumpets preventing the modernisation of Britain? How can the right hon. Gentleman defend the hereditary principle when he himself contracts out of it?
§ The Prime MinisterI think that the hon. Member's timing was a little out of date. It was only on 10th February that he put down a Motion to abolish the House of Lords. He has now come on—he now only wants to reform it. When in another place I and my colleagues put forward a proposal for the reform of the House of Lords in 1961, the hon. Member and his colleagues all voted it down.
§ Mr. HamiltonIs the Prime Minister aware that the Motion to which he referred was a classic example of how we can modernise by abolition?
§ Mr. ShinwellIs there not something to be said for an investigation of this kind? Would it not afford the Prime Minister a means of escaping back to another place and would we not bear that with our customary fortitude?
§ The Prime MinisterThere may be a case for considering reform. All I am saying is that when we put it forward ourselves hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite turned it down.