§ Q3. Mr. St. John-Stevasasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a further statement on the Government's proposals regarding reform of the Upper House.
§ The Prime MinisterI have as yet nothing to add to the Answer I gave on 5th March to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. William Hamilton).—[Vol. 760, c. 227–8.]
§ Mr. St. John-StevasMay I address to the Prime Minister the query of his distinguished and much-lamented predecessor, Lord Melbourne, "Why can't you let it alone?"? Does he agree with his own statement made in the House in July, 1966, that there was no general desire for reform—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. We can have no quotations in a supplementary question—not even from Lord Melbourne.
§ Mr. St. John-StevasI was finding difficulty in making myself heard, Mr. Speaker.
Does the Prime Minister agree with his own statement made to this House in July, 1966, that there was no desire for a reform of the composition of the House of Lords?
§ The Prime MinisterWhile deferring to the hon. Gentleman as a distinguished 1612 Victorian historian, I am not sure, whatever he may say, that Lord Melbourne's words should necessarily be considered as being representative of the last word on everything.
As for the proposals which are now being discussed, I am, of course, not free to say how the discussions are going; but we made it clear in the debate on the Gracious Speech why we felt that both composition and powers should be discussed.
§ Mr. William HamiltonDid not the Government say that it was important to get legislation on this matter on the Statute Book this Session? Would my right hon. Friend repeat that undertaking and assure us that that will be done?
§ The Prime MinisterWe will have to see how we go in this matter—[Interruption.] I thought that there was a genuine desire in the House that we should try to proceed by agreement, if possible; and this is what we are trying to achieve. What I said last November was that if there was not agreement, the Government would intend to introduce legislation. However, I do not think that I should prejudice what is happening in the discussions, which are taking place with a view to reaching an agreed solution and having legislation at whatever seems to be a convenient time for the House.
§ Mr. Hugh FraserCannot the Prime Minister go a little further and say more about what is happening about the reform of the House of Lords? We have constantly asked the Leader of the House questions about this, but he has always given vague answers. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman be more specific and say whether or not legislation will be brought forward this Session?
§ The Prime MinisterAs discussions are going on, and in view of the general desire of the House that we should, if possible, get an agreed proposal for legislation, I do not think that it would help if I were to say anything further on this subject this afternoon.
§ Mr. Michael FootIs my right hon. Friend aware that another of his distinguished predecessors, the Duke of Wellington, said on one occasion that nobody cared a damn for the House of Lords? Will he make sure that this 1613 estimable view is enshrined in the forthcoming legislation?
§ The Prime MinisterThe drafting of the legislation must, of course, be a question for the inter-party discussions which are now going on, and I must not prejudge them. However, I remember that when there was great anxiety about the House of Lords in relation to steel in the 1940s, my hon. Friend certainly did not then take the view that nobody cared a damn what went on there.