---

Mr. Forth: Two out of three.

Mr. Garnier: I am always so grateful to my right hon. Friend--I think. I shall resume my seat and invite other members of the Committee to comment on what I have said.

Mr. Stevenson: I, too, have suffered provocation. I had not intended to contribute to the debate, but I feel that I must. I have listened to the contributions from Opposition Members and read the new clauses, and one might be tempted to think that they had some superficial attraction. The new clauses seek first to identify what the role of the interim Chamber might be. I repeat that, as I listened to Conservative Members, I felt a certain attraction towards that objective. The second objective is to try to ensure that, whoever might be the Members of the interim second Chamber, there is a written declaration that they are willing to participate in the activities set out in the new clauses.

However, as the debate continued, that superficial attraction turned into a proverbial Irish mist. The activities referred to in the new clauses are important. How do we define them? What are they? Should we not take this opportunity to define them so that there is no risk of the interim second Chamber not knowing what it is about? I listened to the ingenious arguments put forward--indeed, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) was congratulated by his hon. Friends on the ingenious way in which he had used the new clauses to introduce that important element of definition--but, on at least one occasion, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office intervened to point out that it is not the Government's intention to change the functions currently exercised in the second Chamber. I thought that that was pretty clear.

Mr. Tyrie: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that, by changing the composition of the Chamber, he changes the effectiveness with which the Chamber may exercise those functions? That is the crucial element in the argument that seems to have eluded so many Labour Members, but is so clear to Conservative Members.

Mr. Stevenson: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. Having attended most of the debates, I have listened to the arguments ad nauseam. By the way, I note the disappearance from the Chamber of the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth)--or is he the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood? No, he was kicked out of that seat.

I acknowledge the argument about effectiveness, but these new clauses talk not about effectiveness, but about willingness; we are attempting to define the powers

4 Mar 1999 : Column 1301

and responsibilities of the interim second Chamber. I acknowledge that there are arguments about how effectively those powers might be exercised in terms of what the interim second Chamber will be, and those arguments have been put forward by many right hon. and hon. Members. On the parts of the new clauses that attempt to identify those responsibilities, I am certain that that matter is important and equally certain that my hon. Friend the Minister directly answered the concerns that were expressed. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will also refer to the matter.

When I referred earlier to the declaration of willingness, I noticed that the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) nodded, so I assume that he supports that point. However, that aspect of the new clauses is flawed. In an intervention on the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), I asked what criteria would be used to determine whether that willingness was a reality. He was unable to answer, but called in aid the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), who gave a definition that I thought he had plucked out of the air. It is my assertion that, if we were to ask the 30 or 40 hon. Members in the Committee for a definition, we should hear 30 or 40 different definitions.

The new clauses are fundamentally flawed. It is no good talking about hypotheses, as the hon. and learned Member for Harborough did in answer to my intervention. We are talking not about hypotheses, but about new clauses which, if accepted, would appear in the Bill.

What would be a criterion for demonstrating willingness? Would it be a Member's attendance record? Perhaps a Member would be deemed to have shown willingness if he attended a Scrutiny Committee meeting and listened to the discussion. Sometimes one contributes as much by listening as by speaking--I would remind the hon. Member for Aldershot of that if he were present, but he is not. How would one judge those criteria? Would Members have to produce sick notes from their GPs? Would they have to provide explanations such as, "I'm sorry that I could not attend, but I was sick" and "I had a family crisis"? The whole area is a minefield.

I respectfully suggest to the hon. Member for Woodspring that it would be impossible to employ criteria to determine whether a declaration of willingness was real. I challenge the hon. Member for West Dorset--if he intends to contribute again to the discussion--to spell out what those criteria would be. I shall listen with great interest as I contend that that is an impossible task.

If it were possible to arrive at criteria, we would have to consider what penalties might be imposed if no willingness were indicated--as it says in new clause 26. It is not just a matter of willingness, but an indication of willingness. I do not know what that means. I understand what "willingness" and "indicate" mean, but I am not sure what indicative willingness is. I challenge Opposition Members to clarify that point. It is not a hypothetical matter: if the new clauses are passed, they will go into the Bill. We are dealing with reality.

The new clauses seek to do two things to which I referred earlier. First, they seek to define the responsibilities of the other Chamber. My hon. Friend the Minister answered that point and said that there would be no changes. Therefore, that part of the new clauses is not required. Secondly, the new clauses seek to

4 Mar 1999 : Column 1302

introduce a declaration or indication of willingness. That is simply impractical and impossible and would not stand up to even the slightest scrutiny. That point has not yet been clarified by the Opposition. They have not explained what criteria would be used to determine whether real willingness had been shown or what penalties might be imposed if it was not.

New clauses that appeared to be superficially attractive have proved to be nothing but political posturing. I shall listen carefully to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but I hope that the Government will oppose the new clauses. If that is the Government's intention, I shall certainly pass through the Lobby with enthusiasm.

Mr. Forth: I rather agree with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson). I think that my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) will have quite a job to persuade me and, perhaps, other hon. Members of the viability of the new clauses. I do not question the importance of the subject that has been raised. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South is an experienced Committee Chairman and he knows that it is not always sufficient for the Government to criticise Opposition amendments for their technical content. It is possible for the Government, as a matter of good will, to say, "We accept the substance, but would like the amendment to be redrafted." In the ministerial response, I shall look for an indication of how Ministers believe that the substance of the new clauses can properly be addressed. Following the speech of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, I am worried about the ability to translate words such as "participate" into reality.

6.15 pm

By analogy, let us consider this House. Can we imagine setting out to judge Members on participation--to say nothing of penalties? It is a little easier to deal with the point about penalties. This House has a combination of party discipline and the Whips, the Government's power of patronage, the huge attraction of becoming an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman and the ultimate sanction of party selection and the electorate. None of those is available in the other place--at least until my objective of a wholly elected upper Chamber is realised. The point about participation will be rather difficult to get a grip of.

Even if, under the terms of the new clauses, people said, "Yes, I will be a working peer"--I think that that is the general objective--and even if the declaration is made in good faith, how will a judgment be made on whether that declaration will be fulfilled? It does not matter which paragraph of the new clauses we consider. As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South said, how are we to account for assiduous attendance in a debate such as this if one has not spoken? Would we have to bob up and down, intervening constantly, just to show that we had been present? Would a record be kept of those who sat on the Benches, as happens in the other place so that Members may qualify for their daily allowance? Let us consider the even more difficult question of participation in

"the study of European Community obligations".

It would be very difficult to get any definitive grip on such matters.

4 Mar 1999 : Column 1303

Although I fully support the thrust of the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset, he has his work cut out if he is to persuade me--and, obviously, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South--that the new clauses can work, and that we can find a way in which to measure and monitor such matters, especially participation. We would have to deal with penalties, too. If we found ways of judging, and Members were found wanting, what would happen? What would happen if I signed a declaration and were made a Member of an interim House, but was judged not to have participated adequately?

---