§ Q4. Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister how many meetings have been held between party leaders to 2133 discuss House of Lords reform; and how many more are expected before agreed proposals are published.
§ The Prime MinisterI would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer I gave to a supplementary question by him on 2nd April.—[Vol. 762, c. 173–4.]
§ Mr. HamiltonIs my right hon. Friend aware that that did not answer the Question on the Order Paper? Will he now impose the Guillotine upon the talks? Is my right hon. Friend aware that a nominated, salaried Upper Chamber would be violently opposed by his hon. Friends, and that it is much more important at this stage to get the support of Members on this side of the House than hon. Members opposite? It would serve our purposes very well if there were deliberately provoked a head-on clash with the other House, as seems likely.
§ The Prime MinisterOn one thing my hon. Friend and I are in complete agreement—that my answer did not answer the Question on the Order Paper. The reason is that it was agreed at the outset by those taking part in the talks not only that no statements would be made while they were continuing but that there should not be even a reference to the number, dates or times of the individual meetings. I am carrying out that undertaking. Certainly, when the House debates whatever report emerges, views such as those expressed by my hon. Friend will be expressed again, and we shall pay full attention to them. I am sorry on such a pleasant sunny afternoon on the eve of our holiday to hear such bloodthirsty warnings from my hon. Friend.
§ Mr. John WellsDo the party leaders with whom the Prime Minister has been discussing things include the leaders of the parties represented by the hon. Members for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly), Shipley (Mr. Hirst), Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans) and Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing)?
§ The Prime MinisterThe hon. Gentleman's premise was wrong, because I have not myself been engaged in the talks. I had a discussion with the right hon. Gentlemen the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Party to 2134 agree the basis on which our colleagues could enter into the talks. Although I have not been involved in them, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the talks are confined to representatives in both Houses of the three parties in this House.
§ Mr. OrmeIs my right hon. Friend aware that the talks that go on between the usual channels, which exclude backbench Members, are increasingly met by criticism and resistance by back-bench Members, who resent being the last people to be consulted about changes, about legislation, and about many other matters affecting the House? Does he agree that it is about time this system was ended?
§ The Prime MinisterMy hon. Friend is wrong. It is anything but the usual channels in this case. I think that it would be generally agreed that, if there is to be a major constitutional change of this kind, it should be discussed between all the parties concerned, and, if possible, agreement reached. The agreement would then be reported to this House, and, before any decision was taken, the views of all hon. Members in this House would be sought in a debate on the proposals. That, of course, would precede any legislation. The House will be in absolute control and mastery of the report. However, I do not think it would be possible to have consultation with 600 Members of this House and many hundreds of Members of another place to get an agreed report.
§ Sir D. RentonIs it not a bit soon to start guillotining Members of another place?
§ Mr. ShinwellIn contrast to the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), would the Prime Minister at some time care to have a referendum on this subject, excepting myself, to discover with what anxieties some hon. Members on this and on the other side are consumed to be transferred to the other place?
§ The Prime MinisterMy right hon. Friend is, of course, quite right. This is a seasonal syndrome which is bound to be highly developed about this time of the year.
§ Sir H. Legge-BourkeWould the Prime Minister agree that the major 2135 constitutional reform expressed by the Minister of Technology last weekend has considerable relevance to any change in the constitutional position between the two Houses?
§ The Prime MinisterI have already answered a Question about my right hon. Friend's speech. I think that any decision about constitutional changes of this kind must be taken in the two Houses of Parliament, not by referendum or anything else. We shall have the report, and this House and another place must be free to make up their minds on it.
§ Mr. Arthur LewisIs my right hon. Friend aware that, to put it mildly, there may be some dismay upon the part of the many sick and disabled who find they will have prescription charges imposed upon them whilst their noble Lords are given £2,000 a year, plus expenses, in a non-elected body? Is he aware that that would not be very satisfactory?
§ The Prime MinisterMy hon. Friend must not make any assumption about what will come out of the report on the point that he has mentioned. The House will be discussing prescription charges later today.