§ Q6. Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Prime Minister what consideration has been given by Her Majesty's Government to a reform of the House of Lords designed to make it more systematically representative of the estates, professions, trades and religious and cultural life of the United Kingdom.
§ The Prime MinisterI have no evidence that there is any general desire for a reform in the composition of the House of Lords.
§ Mr. Biggs-DavisonHas not this been an outstanding question for more than 50 years now? While the House of Lords is an extremely valuable and expert body, is it not desirable to seek to make it more so while keeping an elected proportion of hereditary peers? Will the Prime Minister take advantage of the French Prime Minister's visit to discuss with him 251 the ideas underlying the French proposal to amalgamate the Economic and Social Council with the Senate, with a view to having a second chamber such as I have suggested?
§ The Prime MinisterNow that I have heard the hon. Gentleman's suggestion for the composition of the House of Lords, I am even more reinforced in my view that there are many ideas about composition, but I do not know that there is any great enthusiasm for any one proposal. What has been a matter of concern for some years—and it was dealt with in the recent election manifesto of the Labour Party—is the question not of the composition but of the powers of the House of Lords.
§ Mr. William HamiltonCan my right hon. Friend say where on earth he got the idea that there is no pressure in the country or in this House to reform the House of Lords, if not to abolish it completely? Will he give an assurance that the promise, threat or whatever it was in the Labour Party manifesto to curb its delaying powers is only the first step in the reform of the place along the corridor?
§ The Prime MinisterIn fairness to my hon. Friend, I should make it clear that he has not been one of the applicants for honours. He obviously misheard me if he thinks that what I said was that there was no desire for a reform of the House of Lords. I said that there was no desire for a reform of the composition of the House of Lords. The promise in the Labour Party manifesto referred to powers, not composition.
§ Mr. Robert CookeHave any of the Prime Minister's right hon. or hon. Friends asked for a life peerage within the last 48 hours?
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir, there have been no such requests, and the hon. Gentleman will have noticed that since October, 1964, we have not been ennobling any sitting Members or giving them knighthoods, or baronetcies, or anything else. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sorensen."] It is, of course, the fact—I overlooked this—that two of my hon. Friends went to another place shortly after the formation of the Government in October, 1964, but the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, who had a long, distinguished record as Patronage 252 Secretary in the matter of rewarding his back benchers, will have noticed that we have not given knighthoods, baronetcies or peerages to sitting Members from that moment.
§ Mr. John LeeWill my right hon Friend nevertheless bear in mind that, whatever attempts are made to improve the House of Lords, there is only one reform that we want, and that is to get rid of it quickly?
§ The Prime MinisterEven on that proposition there are many views in different parts of the House and in the country, but I think that the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) will recognise that a considerable number of scientists, professional men, and representatives of the religious and cultural life of the United Kingdom, to quote his Question, have recently been recommended to go to the other place and that this, over a period, is doing what he wants to do in the last few words of his Question.
§ Mr. St. John-StevasWith regard to the power of the House of Lords, would not the best plan be to introduce a Parliament Bill in reverse so that when a Measure of law reform has passed the upper House twice, it should pass this House subject only to a six months' delay?
§ The Prime MinisterThat is a very interesting proposition, and of course a great many law reform Measures are now emanating from the other place. But I think that this is a matter to which one would have to give further consideration. Perhaps in due course it might be considered by the Select Committee on Procedure.