asked the Lord President of the Council if he will take steps to improve the labelling of bottles of wine sold by the Refreshment Department in order to describe more accurately their contents.

I have been asked to reply.

Is the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee aware that the bottle in question, for sale at £1·45, was labelled in large letters of gold "Fine Old Claret", that it was neither fine nor old and that I suspect it was not claret? Is he also aware that hon. Members on all sides of the House are extremely pleased that this kind of bottle has now been withdrawn from sale in the House?

That label was one that, as it were, got through the net. It was rejected on arrival and the wine has now been re-labelled. I am sure my hon. Friend will be greatly relieved that it does not claim to be finer or older than one can usually get for £1·45, but it is, I can assure him, a Bordeauxappellation contrôlée. Indeed, I have here a copy of theacquit vert, the certificate of origin, in case my hon. Friend would like to inspect it. The wine is generally thought to be good enough, because we certainly had some great competition in selecting it.

Will the hon. Gentleman give information about the content and quantity for the benefit of those of us who buy wine, either red or white, by the carafe? In spite of what theSunday Times says, I do not know very much about wines—I usually drink red and not white. It would be very helpful to hon. Members if we knew what we were buying and just what the quantity was in a carafe.

The carafe has hitherto been five-sixths of a bottle, but the EEC regulations have now somewhat changed that. A bottle is 70 centilitres. I believe that a carafe is 60 centilitres and a half-carafe 40 centilitres, which makes matters even more difficult, but I shall have this information printed on the wine lists

asked the Lord President of the Council what representations he has received regarding the abolition of the House of Lords.

I have been left in no doubt that such a step would enjoy considerable support.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is at this time in a Parliament's life that the House of Lords can be at its most dangerous, because its power to delay at the end of such a period is transformed into the ability to knock out any Bill it chooses, if the Government are getting towards the end of their period of office? Will my right hon. Friend therefore take full account of the massive majority at the Labour Party Conference and take no account of Lord Shinwell's remarks, especially when the noble Lord spent most of his time on the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill voting with the Tories?

My hon. Friend is correct in the facts he recited at the end of his supplementary question. Of course, the vote at the Labour Party Conference was one of the representations to which I referred in my original reply.

Has the right hon. Gentleman received or sought any views from the Liberal Party on the future of the House of Lords?

I have not actually discussed that matter with the Liberals, but I would imagine that some of them, at any rate, still hold to the old radical views that they held two or three decades ago.

Would not my right hon. Friend think it highly desirable for the House of Lords to destroy the Scotland Bill, because he could then kill two birds with one stone?

I hope that there will not be any other invocations from hon. Members in this House to invite the House of Lords to exercise its powers in that way. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) referred to the matter the other day, but he did it in a highly jocular manner and people should understand that. Some people do not have as good a sense of humour as he has.

asked the Lord President of the Council what reforms of the parliamentary system he intends to introduce in order to improve parliamentary democracy.

I would suggest that the House should await the outcome of the major review being undertaken by the Select Committee on Procedure.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the biggest threats to parliamentary democracy is when a Member uses a party organisation to get himself a safe seat in this place and then betrays his party and his constituency by crossing the Floor of the House? In such circumstances, should not a Member be obliged to do the decent thing and resign his seat so that people in places such as Newham, North-East can be properly represented in this House?

It is a matter of personal taste, but I think that right hon. and hon. Members who cross the Floor should certainly consider all the suggestions my hon. Friend has made. Indeed, I understand that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Prentice) himself took that view some years ago when another hon. Member crossed the Floor in the opposite direction.

Does not the Lord President agree that one of the important aspects of increasing the effectiveness of parliamentary democracy is by EEC scrutiny and to get really efficient, effective and constructive scrutiny in the future, which is even more important if and when direct elections take place? Does he not agree that intelligent use of the Committee upstairs which examines EEC instruments would be an important part of that improvement?

I think it is one of the ways in which scrutiny can be operated, but we will be discussing the whole of that question next Monday on a motion to be moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and we can examine all these matters more carefully then.

asked the Lord President of the Council whether he intends the separate referendums in Scotland and Wales, provided under the Scotland Bill and Wales Bill, respectively, to be undertaken on the same date.

Yes, that is our intention and the decisions which the House took last week should help us achieve it. But we shall need to keep the position under review in the light of progress on the two Bills.

Is not the Minister aware, in view of the representations made last year for two separate Bills—because of the essential difference between Wales and Scotland and, indeed, the provisions of the two Bills, in that Scotland will have a legislative assembly and Wales will not—that there is every argument now for having referendums on separate days so that the two issues are not confused?

The most important matter which will determine the final attitude on that is the progress of the Bills, and we must wait and see what happens.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many of us are striving hard to convince a sceptical electorate that the Government will not try to pull a fast one over the referendum? By such concessions and undertakings they are giving us many arguments to use.

My hon. Friend should listen to the answer which I gave: that that is our intention. If my hon. Friend repeatedly spreads false suggestions about the attitude of the Government, it is no wonder that some foolish people believe him.