CRITERIA FOR CONFERMENT OF LIFE PEERAGE (No. 1) (Hansard, 4 March 1999)

§ Dr. Fox
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Chairman
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 25—Criteria for conferment of life peerage (No. 2)—

'(1) A person shall not be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a peerage conferred under the Life Peerages Act 1958 unless he has first declared a willingness to serve as a member of the House of Lords.

(2) Any such declaration shall be ineffective at the end of the Session of Parliament in which it is made.

(3) Subsection (2) shall not prevent a further declaration being made at any time.
1285
(4) The declaration shall indicate a willingness to participate in—

(a) the consideration of Bills and draft statutory instruments,

(b) the study of European Community obligations of the United Kingdom,

(c) the scrutiny of Ministers of the Crown, and

(d) the work of select committees.'.

§ Dr. Fox
The new clauses and the amendment have three purposes. The first purpose is to move the debate on to the territory on which I believe the Committee would have preferred it to be from the start of the Bill's consideration—discussion of the role of the interim Chamber and, by implication, the Chamber thereafter.
It is extremely important that we consider the issue in the right order. We believe, as we have said from the outset of debate on the Bill, that first we must consider what Parliament as a whole should do, and what the relationship should be between Parliament and the Executive, the judiciary and Europe. When we have decided what the role of Parliament should be, we can decide what the balance between the two Chambers should be. When we have decided the balance between the two Chambers, and the relative powers and roles of the two Chambers, we can decide composition. That is a logical and sensible way to deal with our constitutional model.
The Government continue with their obsession with composition. The White Paper states in chapter 8, paragraph 1 on page 43: Central to the future House of Lords is its composition. The Government begin every argument with composition, rather than role. The purpose of the new clauses is to set out what we believe the role of the second Chamber should be and to put the debate on a firmer footing.
Secondly, we want to reaffirm our commitment to a second Chamber—not one that is weakened and supine, which effectively leads to single-Chamber government, but a strong and virile second Chamber that will stand up to an ever more mighty Executive, which increasingly has the House of Commons in its grip. At present, the Commons is largely the Prime Minister and Parliament. We need a Chamber that is willing to tackle the Government and engage in serious scrutiny, without the fear of the retribution of the Whips, which is felt to a 1286 large extent in the House. That practice has existed for some time, but has worsened in recent years. It is an unhealthy development in a modern democracy.
Along with our commitment to a strong second Chamber, those in that Chamber must have a commitment to the workings of Parliament. If the number of Members of the upper House is to be reduced by the Government's actions through the Bill, it is essential that Members of that House are willing to play a full role in the workings of the House and the duties that will accompany membership.
I take the opportunity to pay tribute to all those who have played an active role in the upper House and who have been willing, for the meagre sums that were mentioned in previous debates, to become engaged in long and arduous debate on behalf of the people of this country—a contribution made not least by many hereditary peers. I wish that, during the many stages of the debate, the Government had been a little more generous in spirit about the fantastic contributions made by many hereditary peers to the process of government. That includes hereditary peers on both sides of the House and on the Cross Benches.
We assume in the new clauses that, if the Weatherill amendment comes to pass, it will be via the Life Peerages Act 1958, and that is how any new life peers will be created. However, I am sure that I am wrong and that there is to be a new mechanism. No doubt the Government will want to clarify that as soon as possible.
The three new clauses are somewhat different, and we shall seek to divide the House on new clause 26, which we believe to be preferable. What do the new clauses suggest that the House should do? Clearly, it should examine Bills, draft statutory instruments, study European Community obligations, undertake the scrutiny of Ministers of the Crown and carry out the work of Select Committees.
I shall begin with Bills. We have had adequate reason in recent times to be grateful to the other place for its detailed scrutiny of legislation. That is a good signpost for the future. We will want Members of a reformed Chamber, whether the interim Chamber or beyond, who are willing to take an active interest in Bills and willing to send back to the House of Commons Bills that they believe to be mistaken and about which we should think again.
Let me give three examples. The Education (Student Loans) Bill was sent back to the House of Commons by the House of Lords, which believed that there was no excuse for treating English students differently from Scottish students or students in other parts of the European Union in respect of tuition fees. It was perfectly legitimate for that to be sent back. We want to keep in the interim House people of that calibre who are willing to take an interest in such a subject.
Peers were willing to send back the Crime and Disorder Bill, because they believed that the provisions on sexual offences contained insufficient protection for minors. The House of Commons thought about the matter again and dealt with it in a mature way. It was valuable to the process of politics in our country that the upper House was willing to do that.
I know that some Labour Members—I can see one, at least—believe in unicameral government. We need a second Chamber to ask us to think again. Few people can 1287 believe that their wisdom is so great that no one else can ever have a better idea. In the White Paper, the Government say clearly that they are committed to a second Chamber, but that second Chamber must be worthwhile, not simply a roll-over-and-die second Chamber.
Perhaps the best most recent example of proper scrutiny was in relation to the closed-list system for the European elections. The upper House, which the Government say has no democratic legitimacy, was willing to stand up for the rights of voters when they were being diminished to give more power to politicians. The number of times that that legislation was sent back to the House was a good example of how an upper House, which is not democratically elected, can have a far better feel for democracy than an Executive who are overcome with the intoxicating effect of their majority.

§ Mr. Hoon
Can the hon. Gentleman give a single example of a Conservative Minister calling for a stronger second Chamber?

§ Dr. Fox
It is always easy for one Government to ask why a previous Government did not do something when they were in power. It was never regarded as a priority. But many Conservative Members have, for many years, believed that there was strong case for reform. In 1968, the Conservative party was at the forefront of negotiations on the House of Lords, and it was the House of Commons that prevented that reform.
I have two personal reasons for being in favour of the reform of both Houses of Parliament. As a Whip in the previous Government, I believed that the Whipping process was too strong. Through the Whips, the Executive had too much power. I still believe that to be true. Moreover, as a Minister in the Foreign Office, I never felt myself to be under great scrutiny by the House of Commons. There is a role, to which I shall come, for the greater scrutiny of Ministers.
One of the advantages of being in opposition is that we have experience of being in government, as well as the rather unpalatable task of being the Opposition. For Ministers to say that, because we did not do something when we were in power it cannot be important, is naive and disingenuous.

§ Mr. Fallon
Before my hon. Friend takes the process of personal self-flagellation too far, will he not totally ignore the role of previous Conservative Governments in strengthening the upper House? After all, it was a Conservative Government who introduced life peerages in the first place.

§ Dr. Fox
There were also the Select Committees, which gave hon. Members a greater say, to which I shall come. Notwithstanding that—I hoped to tread the path between self-righteousness and self-flagellation rather more delicately than I obviously did—experience gives us a chance to consider how the system operates. Many ex-Ministers feel that Parliament does not provide sufficient scrutiny. I know that some feel that more would not be a good idea anyway and would be rather inconvenient for Ministers, but, as we are in an era when 1288 we seem to want to apply quality control to everyone else, it seems rather illogical to exempt Ministers of the Crown from the process. When any individual undergoes a period of scrutiny, it provides a better reason to perform well in any particular task.
The second area that we want to consider concerns draft statutory instruments, and that brings us to the question of secondary legislation. Most of our legislation now is secondary legislation. There is a strong argument that the structure of both Houses of Parliament was designed primarily to consider primary legislation. In a system where most of our legislation is now secondary, we must ask whether Parliament fulfils its most basic task, which is the scrutiny of legislation that affects the British people. Serious questions must be asked about the current mechanism for doing so.
There is a potentially dramatically increased role for an upper Chamber to consider secondary legislation. With the best will in the world, that growing volume of secondary legislation, not least that which comes from beyond our borders through the European Union, will require ever more scrutiny.
With regard to the United Kingdom's EU obligations, it is well accepted—I hope that it is on both sides of the House—that the European Communities Committee in the other place is possibly the most effective seriously scrutinising body that we have in this area. In my view, it does its work better than we in this House do. It has the advantage of having less input from the Patronage Secretary and her troops. It will take on an increasingly important role after devolution, when we will undoubtedly be involved in disputes about which part of our parliamentary structure should scrutinise certain aspects of European obligations.
5.15 pm
A good example of that came in our debates on the Lords amendments to the Scotland Bill. We talked about quantitative distribution of international obligations and it became clear that the process of consultation between Westminster and the Scottish Parliament was rather unclear. Those European obligations will have to be scrutinised carefully in the upper House. The Government must take that into account as we move towards the interim Chamber, and the royal commission will have to take that seriously when it discusses a proper and fully operational stage 2.
The third matter under consideration in the new clauses is the scrutiny of Ministers of the Crown. As long as members of the Executive sit in the legislature, and, therefore, as long as there are Ministers in the House of Lords, it is essential that they are scrutinised and questioned. That is especially important because Ministers in the other House are direct appointees of the Prime Minister, are not answerable to the electorate and have immense Executive power without ever being accountable to anyone but the Prime Minister.
As hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber would agree, that is, effectively, presidential government via the legislature. It is essential, therefore, that Ministers are brought to account. The Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe, Lord Simon, and the Minister for Science, Lord Sainsbury, are two good recent examples—I will not go into the politics of that because you would certainly rule me out of order, Sir Alan— 1289 of why we need proper scrutiny of Ministers in the upper House. Without that, we would be failing in our duty to hold the Government properly to account.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) mentioned the strengthening of the House by the Conservatives and identified the setting up of Select Committees as one of the ways in which previous Conservative Governments, when we had large majorities, set about making sure that there was a balance of power and that Parliament was able to have better control over the Executive. I pay handsome tribute to House of Lords Select Committees such as the Science and Technology Committee, which has already been mentioned by several hon. Members, and the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. Those Committees do tremendous work, boosting the reputation of Parliament and improving its workings.
Our Select Committees are one of the finest parts of the institutions of our Parliament, but there is a considerable way to go in strengthening them. There is an appetite in both Houses for Select Committees to be given more teeth to bring the Executive ever more to account. One of the more healthy trends in recent politics is that Select Committee Chairmen have been willing to bear their fangs a little more at the Executive, which is entirely understandable when they are treated with contempt by the Government. For example, the Government say that they will ignore any criticisms made of them by a Select Committee.
For Select Committees to work, the culture governing them must be working properly and the culture of the Government must be governed by a willingness to accept criticism when it is valid.

§ Mrs. Beckett
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not mean to mislead the House. I am sure, too, that he is aware of the doctrine on relationships between Ministers and Select Committees, as promulgated by the then Leader of the House, Lord Howe, in 1990. I do not have the words with me, but that doctrine makes it very plain that there is nothing out of the way in Ministers responding to criticism from Select Committees, whether in reports, comment from hon. Members or whatever. Indeed, that is part of the robust relationship between Ministers and Select Committees.

§ Dr. Fox
I absolutely accept that. What I find rather bizarre is the concept that Ministers should criticise Select Committee reports before they are published and should say that, if there is any criticism of the Government, they will not accept it. That is either utter stupidity or utter arrogance. I tend to think that it is the latter.
New clause 24 asks those who are Members of the House of Lords by virtue of a life peerage to make a declaration of willingness to scrutinise, once and for all. New clause 25 asks for that declaration at the beginning of every Session of Parliament and new clause 26 asks for a declaration once every Parliament. Of the three, new clause 26 strikes the better balance and its request is more reasonable.
The Government are obsessed with composition. We should move the debate on to firmer territory. If we are to make progress, and if we are to get anything like the consensus that the Government say in the White Paper that they seek, we must move the debate on to territory 1290 on which we can make progress. We must get away from the Government's obsession with composition and deal with the role and functions of the other place. We are talking not about Mickey Mouse changes, but about a fundamental alteration to the way in which we are governed. The nation needs to know what those changes will be.
The new clauses set out in more detail than anything the Government have produced what an interim Chamber should be doing. I ask my colleagues to support the new clause in the Lobby.

§ Mr. Fallon
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his ingenuity in finally bringing the Committee round to the subject that should have occupied us from the beginning—the functions of the Chamber that we seek to reform. I compliment him on his further ingenuity in offering the Committee three variations of the new clause. Like him, I much prefer new clause 26, which is slightly less bureaucratic than new clause 24, and avoids some unnecessary form filling.
It is essential that we begin with the assertion of exactly what the upper House is supposed to do. We would want to do that anyway if we sought to reform its composition, but we want to do it all the more because we see in the White Paper the first shadowy outline of the type of second Chamber that the Government would prefer. It is clear from chapter 7 of the White Paper that the Labour party would prefer a weaker House. The Government make that explicit. They talk about powers that might be used more frequently, but should be reduced. They suggest that the delaying power should be reduced, so that the power of the upper House to ask us to think again should not result in a Bill being delayed as long as it can be now. They even suggest that the ping-pong legislative procedure at the end of each Session should be curtailed, so that when the other place asks us to have second thoughts it will not have the leverage that it has at present when a Session of Parliament is expiring.

The Chairman
Order. I must help the hon. Member and the Committee. The debate on the new clause cannot be widened into a general debate about the functions of the House of Lords. The issue must be referred to only in the context of the job specification for life peers in the terms of the new clause. The hon. Member has started to go outside that issue, so I ask him respectfully to come back within the narrow definition that I have given.

§ Mr. Fallon
That guidance is extremely helpful to the Committee, Sir Alan. It is important that we ventilate this issue, because the role of the interim House will be significant when we eventually decide the role of the House after stage 2. There is no point inviting people to serve in the interim House unless we are clear about what they are there to do.
You have rightly ruled out, Sir Alan, any further discussion of what Labour Members think those who will serve in the interim House should do, but I am sure that that does not preclude us from stating clearly in the statute what they will do. My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) has laid out those functions very clearly. The new clause states that there should be a willingness to participate in … the consideration of Bills". That will be enormously important in the interim stage, not least because, if the Government want a weaker House on stage 2, those who participate in the interim House will 1291 do so in the knowledge that only a small number of them will eventually graduate to membership of the House at stage 2. Unless we include in the Bill a clear definition of their role, they may feel cowed and unable to exercise even their present functions properly and without fear. Without such a definition, they may feel constrained: they may feel that they will miss out on the transition to stage 2.

§ Mr. Forth
Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the wording shall indicate a willingness to participate is strong enough, and is likely to be effective enough? It strikes me that it would be possible to make such a declaration, and do precious little afterwards.

§ Mr. Fallon
Later in my speech, I shall identify a number of respects in which I feel that the new clause is rather modest. As my right hon. Friend says, it is possible that the willingness indicated by the ticking of a box on a form at the beginning of a Session will be no guarantee of the number of sittings that the peer in question will attend. I know that, if there were a league table for attendance, my right hon. Friend would be in the premier division. He is an assiduous attender not just of this Committee, but of our sittings generally.
The drafting of the new clause may need to be examined, but I am sure that, if it is accepted, my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring will deal with that on Report. Perhaps, when he winds up the debate, he will tell us how "willingness" might be defined.
Let me return to the functions that we are discussing. Unless we reassure Members of the interim House that they have a proper role to play, they will inevitably be overwhelmed and cowed by the need to ensure that they survive to become Members of the stage 2 House. That applies regardless of whether they consider standing for election should all or even part of that House be elected. They will, of course, want to assure those who select them for election that they have been good boys, or good girls, in the interim House—that they have not been too aggressive towards the Executive. It will also apply if they wish to stand for membership of the nominated element of the stage 2 House. I believe that they will feel cowed by the knowledge that the Government want a weaker stage 2 House, and that they must not prejudice their membership of that House.

§ Dr. Fox
There is, perhaps, a more pressing reason for the functions of an interim Chamber to be detailed. The interim Chamber may, in effect, be stage 2. Page 29 of the White Paper states: If there is consensus, the Government will make every effort to ensure that the second stage of reform has been approved by Parliament before the next election. Given the difficulty that has been experienced during this century in securing any form of consensus on reform, there is a good chance that the interim Chamber will become at least a semi-permanent Chamber, and there is, therefore, all the more reason to detail what it will do.

§ Mr. Fallon
That is another powerful argument in favour of the new clauses—so powerful, indeed, that I begin to puzzle why my hon. Friend did not include it in his speech.
1292 I have studied these matters for some time—ever since the publication of the Home report in 1978—and I have never believed that any interim House could become the stage 2 House. I think it was Freud who, when told that the Russian revolution would begin a period of chaos that would eventually lead to a paradise on earth, replied, "I half believe it." I half believe that the Government were originally serious about reforming the House of Lords; but, as the process has been unveiled, along with the peculiarly cack-handed way in which they have approached it, it has become apparent that we are likely to be stuck with an interim House for a long time.

The Chairman
Order. Freud is dead, and I think that this part of the hon. Gentleman's speech should die with him, because it is well beyond the scope of the new clause.

§ Mr. Fallon
I apologise, Sir Alan. I fear that my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring slightly misled me by drawing the Committee's attention again to paragraph 21 of the White Paper, where it is made clear that there is no binding commitment to legislation in the current Parliament. That is why it is important that the Committee should focus on the functions to be undertaken by the interim Chamber.

§ Dr. Starkey
As I understood it, the argument that the hon. Gentleman was advancing before the previous intervention was that Members of the upper House would be incredibly cowed by their need to be selected for either election or nomination. Does that not apply to all Members of the upper House, at least half of whom will he selected by the Conservative party? They will not all be selected by the Government.

§ Mr. Fallon
Those Members will be selected for the interim House, of course, but Members on both sides of the interim House will have to have an eye on their eventual selection for the stage 2 House. We all in the Committee anticipate that the Government will change at the next election, so exactly the same argument will apply to Members on each side of the interim House.

§ Mr. Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove)
Did I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument? Does he feel that membership of the House of Lords should be permanent and not subject to review under any circumstances, with no elected component at any stage?

§ Mr. Fallon
That is not a proposition that I have advanced either today or at any previous sitting of the Committee. What is important is that those whom we now invite to be Members of the interim House should be clear as to what their functions are. That is why those functions are spelled out in the new clauses.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring has hit the nail on the head. Consideration of Bills is obviously a primary function of the upper House. It is all the more necessary that it is exercised properly because of the number of Bills and the haste with which they are pushed through the House. The scrutiny process in the House of Commons has been curtailed by the use of timetable 1293 motions at the drop of a hat. Therefore, it is all the more important that the interim House takes that legislative function seriously.

§ Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, not least because I notice that my parliamentary neighbour, the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell), has recently entered the Chamber. My hon. Friend's point is particularly relevant following an exchange at Prime Minister's Question Time yesterday, when the Prime Minister said that he did not believe in parliamentary scrutiny, and that he believed only in the mandate that his Government had to implement their business. That is precisely why the new clause is so important.

§ Mr. Fallon
You would rule me out of order, Mr. Martin, if I repeated a section from my Second Reading speech, but it was Baroness Jay who let the cat out of the bag. She said that the Bill was all about "modernising government". It is not. The new clause is about ensuring that a reformed second Chamber—there are many arguments for reforming it—has a clear statement as to the functions that it is supposed to perform. Better consideration of Bills, particularly legislation that is rushed through the House of Commons, must surely be one of those primary functions.
On the function in subsection (2)(b) of new clause 26, the study of European Community obligations, the ability of the House of Commons to consider properly the merits of those European Community obligations and the legislation that flows from them is restricted by the terms under which the original Select Committee was set up in 1973; that is why we had to revise our procedures and to set up the two new Standing Committees. Therefore, it is all the more important that we set out in statute the requirement that life peers should participate in the study of European Community obligations.
The third function, the scrutiny of Ministers of the Crown, will be important work for the upper House. The Government have said that, in the second stage House, Ministers might not even have to be Members. They have said that it would be difficult if they were not, but they have not ruled it out. Perhaps there is some fancy continental proposal floating around that Ministers might not need to be a Member of either House. In fact, we have seen an example of that already—Lord Macdonald seems to have floated around in the Government over the past few months without being a Member of either House. Perhaps Ministers from Whitehall might only have to turn up and stand at the Bar of the other place. It is essential—

§ Mr. Letwin
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a particular need to scrutinise the Ministers in the other place, given the extremely controversial nature of some of them at present?

§ Mr. Fallon
My hon. Friend may be leading me on to political ground, which may be a little outside the scope of the Committee.
What we can say about the Ministers who serve the Crown in another place is that they have not sought election or endorsement. Indeed, many of them have not stood for any sort of public office or even taken the trouble to be a member of the political party that has 1294 appointed them. It is all the more important that those unelected crony Ministers should be properly scrutinised. That is why I am delighted to see that function spelt out in subsection (2)(c).
On subsection (2)(d), I am not the first member of the Committee to draw attention to the excellent work of the Select Committees of the Upper House, whether in scrutinising European legislation or scrutinising science and technology. By the way in which they have carried out their work, the noble Lords who serve on those Committees have built a strong reputation for them, both in Brussels and in Whitehall. Their reports are widely respected. It is part of the tradition of the House and we want to see the transfer of the knowledge and experience that have been built up.
When I spoke on the previous group of amendments, I was told that the reason for keeping the Privileges Committee, even though it would be adjudicating on claims that have nothing to do with the current House, is that it has great tradition and has built up a great body of knowledge. That is to be kept for a function that it is no longer necessary for it to discharge, but the Government are happy to see that retained simply because the expertise built up is so great. If that applies to the handling of the Ampthill baby or the various Moynihan babies, it certainly applies to the handling of European legislation.
I am delighted that my hon. Friends have tabled this new clause and enabled the Committee to focus for the first time on the functions that the reformed House will exercise. It has enabled us to bring out the threat to the second Chamber that lies in almost every paragraph of chapter 7 of the White Paper. If we accept the new clause, it will give some comfort to those whom we are inviting at very little cost—as we discovered under an earlier group of amendments—to serve us. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the new clause.

§ Mr. Garnier
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) for introducing the new clause and for reminding the Committee of our party's support for the need for a discussion about the role of the interim Chamber and our commitment to a second Chamber. We all know that there is no certainty about the length of time that the second Chamber will last in its interim form. I believe that I am right in saying that, if there are members of the Committee who want a unicameral legislative system, they are to be found on the Labour Benches, not the Conservative Benches. It may well be that not many Labour Members desire a unicameral system.

§ Mrs. Beckett
The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells).

§ Mr. Garnier
I am corrected by the Leader of the House. I gather that my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford is in favour of a unicameral legislative system. Be that as it may, he is very much in the minority. As he is not in the Chamber, he should be able on another occasion to explain the reasons for his preference.
I fully endorse the need for a second Chamber, and for a strongly equipped second Chamber that will perform all the functions stated in new clause 24. I shall deal with those duties in a moment. First, however, I have a couple of queries, with which my hon. Friends the Members for Woodspring and for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) or the Minister may be able to deal.
1295 We should examine the functions of the interim second Chamber in the light of the constitutional disposition that is shortly to come into effect. As my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring pointed out, a new Parliament in Scotland and Assemblies in Wales and in Northern Ireland have been established. The Committee would be far better employed working out the proper relationship of the constituent parts of the Union, their relationship to the United Kingdom Parliament and the governmental systems of the European Union that have some effect on our deliberations before we consider the composition of the membership of the second Chamber—which, as my hon. Friend quite correctly said, seems to be the Government's primary concern.
The Government have yet to tell us what they believe is the proper relationship between the two Houses of Parliament, or the relationship of the Scottish Parliament, the Assembly of Wales, the Northern Ireland Assembly and both Houses of the United Kingdom Parliament. We have yet to hear from the Government what they believe is the proper place of the United Kingdom Parliament in the United Kingdom constitution.
The Government have yet to tell us also what they want the second Chamber to do, in either its interim form or its final form, whenever that may come. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring that we need a strong second Chamber that is able to hold the Executive to account. Under our current constitutional arrangements, the Government may appoint Ministers from both Houses, and both Houses are able to question Ministers. Of course, whether they receive answers is another matter.
The Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department and I have had our little disagreements about his ability to answer questions and to allow himself to be held to account. Perhaps, when attempts were made to hold the Government to account, he would be encouraged to answer questions more satisfactorily if he were not only available to be cross-questioned in this Chamber and in the Select Committees of the House but required occasionally to attend the second Chamber to answer questions. Perhaps future constitutional academics, and we politicians, will have to consider that matter.
Equally, perhaps better scrutiny of Government could be achieved if Ministers who are appointed by the Prime Minister to the other place are available for scrutiny also in this place.

§ Dr. Starkey
Will the hon. and learned Gentleman be making those points in a submission to the royal commission—which is considering precisely those issues on the role and functions of the second Chamber? Is he not pre-empting that consideration?

§ Mr. Garnier
This is the House of Commons. One reason why I was sent to this place by my constituents was to discuss Government legislation. We are here to discuss the Bill, which, sadly—with some honourable exceptions—most Labour Back Benchers have not condescended to come and support with their words.

§ Mr. Letwin
Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the comment of the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, 1296 South—West (Dr. Starkey) betrays the fundamental disposition of Labour Members to assume that they do not need to worry about the functions of the interim Chamber? They want to leave all that to the White Paper, but the long-term plans may never come about.

§ Mr. Garnier
I was thinking in Committee yesterday evening that it seemed to many Labour Back Benchers that the White Paper, not the Bill, was the legislation.

§ Mrs. Beckett
Has it not struck the hon. and learned Gentleman or the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) that perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) was smart enough to spot that the Government do not propose any change to the functions or power of the interim House?

§ Mr. Garnier
If that is the case, more's the pity. The current second Chamber is diffident about using its powers to scrutinise and amend Government legislation. That has been the case under this Government and under the previous Conservative Administrations of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) and my noble Friend Baroness Thatcher.

§ Mr. Stunell
The hon. and learned Gentleman has made an interesting point. What is his evaluation of whether the upper House was more inclined to give serious scrutiny to Conservative legislation or to the legislation of the current Government?

§ Mr. Garnier
I do not have the figures at my fingertips, but many Conservative Bills were given serious scrutiny by the House of Lords. The rights and remedies available to the House of Lords under the constitution and the precedents and traditions of our country are not sufficiently used for fear of offending the elected House. There is nothing wrong with that, because we are the elected Members and the Labour party has a majority in this House, by a huge chalk. It is permissible for the House of Lords to restrain itself. However, if we are revisiting the workings of our constitution, are we not entitled to invite the Committee to apply its mind to the proper functions of the second Chamber in its interim form and in its permanent form, if there is to be one? The proposals in the new clauses on the job specification of the Members of the second House are worthy of consideration.

§ Mr. George Stevenson (Stoke-on-Trent, South)
I have listened with great interest to many speeches, particularly that of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The new clauses talk about a declaration of a willingness to serve. What criteria would he use to judge whether that willingness had been made a reality? Does he envisage a penalty being imposed on those who did not make such a declaration?

§ Mr. Garnier
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman, who must have very good eyesight. That is the next point in my notes. I said at the start of my speech that I wanted to draw to the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring two points of concern about shortcomings in new clause 26, which I am otherwise happy to support.
My first concern was the lack of sanctions for failure. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) asked what sanctions or penalties would 1297 be available to the second Chamber if a Member of that House, having made a declaration to the effect that he was willing to serve under the terms of the new clause, failed to abide by that declaration. Would it be open to the second Chamber to expel him? Would it be open to the Government—or the Prime Minister who had recommended to Her Majesty that the Member be granted a life peerage to sit in the House—to withdraw the life peerage? Those matters need to be considered. It would have been useful for the Committee to hear more about the matter, but that does not vitiate the good sense of the thrust of the new clause.

§ Mr. Stevenson
Will the hon. and learned Gentleman address the first question in my previous intervention? What criteria does he envisage being established to determine whether the call for a declaration of a willingness to serve has been made into a reality?

§ Mr. Garnier
We are talking about a hypothetical situation.

§ Mr. Stevenson
No, we are not.

§ Mr. Garnier
If the hon. Gentleman will have the patience to listen to the answer to his fair question, he will see that we are talking about a hypothetical position, because the measure is not yet in effect. One would have to look at the new clause criteria and see whether any given Member of the second House had complied with the willingness declaration. Had he or she given sufficient attention to the workings of the second Chamber in relation to the consideration of Bills and draft statutory instruments? Had he or she given sufficient attention and time to the study of the European Community obligations of the UK, the scrutiny of Ministers of the Crown and the work of Select Committees? Many things are easier to recognise than to define and, in the event of a Member of the second Chamber failing to come up to scratch in relation to the declaration of willingness, the other place would find mechanisms for bringing him or her to book.
My complaint is that those mechanisms are not spelled out in the new clause. Although the new clause in itself is not to be undermined on that basis, it would have been a better new clause if the details had been included.

§ Mr. Brady
Does my hon. and learned Friend consider that, even without sanctions, the inclusion of the new clause would have the benefit of dealing with a problem raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon)—that there would be a premium on the silent Member of the interim Chamber who might wish to be appointed to a subsequent Chamber? The new clause would make it difficult for a Government to choose the Members who had done and said nothing to go on and serve in any ultimate Chamber.

§ Mr. Garnier
I take my hon. Friend's point, which he made more eloquently than I might have.

§ Mr. Andrew Love (Edmonton)
The hon. and learned Gentleman said that he felt that the new clause had a problem, in that it failed to include any sanctions. Types of sanction have been suggested, but the hon. and learned 1298 Gentleman has not stated any view on them. Before you leave the issue, you should give your wisdom to the Chamber in terms of appropriate sanctions.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin)
Order. I always deliver wisdom to the Chamber.

§ Mr. Garnier
You have done so again, Mr. Martin.
I find new clause 26 generally acceptable, but it has one or two deficiencies. There is an omission regarding the Law Lords—the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary—who at present are life peers and Members of the other place, and are entitled to vote and speak on matters outside their remit as judges of the highest court in the land. I am marginally concerned that the requirement to declare a willingness to be involved in the matters listed in subsection (4)(a), (b), (c) and (d) may in some way affect the independence of the judiciary.

§ Mr. Letwin
My hon. and learned Friend is making a serious point. I hope that he will accept that it was no part of our intention to suggest that there should be any such prejudice to the Law Lords' neutrality. Of course, we assume that the Standing Orders would reflect that, in defining such participation by the Law Lords as neutral.

§ Mr. Garnier
I am pleased to have that assurance. I am not surprised, because, if our party stands for anything, it stands for the independence of the judiciary.

§ Mr. Rammell
I was fascinated to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman lauding the Conservative party's commitment to the independence of the judiciary. Is that his party's view on General's Pinochet's case, which is being adjudicated in the other place?

§ Mr. Garnier
I will not answer that question. That was an unworthy intervention. In expecting me to answer, the hon. Gentleman seems to suggest that the Committee should have some role in influencing the Judicial Committee in reaching its decision in the extradition case. He will have to await the judgment of the other place. I am not prepared to express an opinion about that matter in this forum.
There is an unmet need to define the relationship between the two Houses of Parliament and the new devolved bodies in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. I want to be sure that the Judicial Committee of the other place, or that body in its other guise as the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, will be entitled to carry out its work in arbitrating differences between, for example, the Scottish Parliament and the United Kingdom Parliament.
We must anticipate that there will be constitutional tensions between the devolved bodies and the United Kingdom Parliament. Equally, there are already tensions between this place and the European Parliament and the constitutional arrangements of the European Union. There may also be tensions between us and London's new mayor and assembly, but I am not so worried about that.
We need an arrangement that protects the ability of the Judicial Committee to arbitrate on such matters. A jurisdiction may grow up that provides a body of law; the independent judiciary and the constitutional court 1299 which may develop should be uninfluenced and uninhibited by the need for declarations such as those in the new clauses.

§ Mr. Letwin
Given that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is specifically given the role of adjudicating devolution issues, we have taken it as axiomatic that, in serving on that Committee, their lordships would be acting not as Members of the House of Lords but as members of that Committee, and hence wholly neutral.

§ Mr. Garnier
The only problem with that point is that they will in fact be Members of the House of Lords. We may need to give that aspect of the new clauses further consideration. It may be that we shall be assisted in that by the other place, when it considers this aspect of the Bill.
It is important that we should carefully consider the current constitutional role of the other place and what we hope its future constitutional role will be in dealing with the legal matters to which I adverted. In the past, the House of Lords has performed a vital role as an arbitrator between the justice systems of the Commonwealth and the citizens of its states, and I hope that it will continue to perform that role in the United Kingdom.

§ Mr. John M. Taylor (Solihull)
Under the previous Government, I undertook a mission on behalf of the Lord Chancellor's Department to visit several of the jurisdictions in the Caribbean.

§ Mr. Forth
Lucky you.

§ Mr. Taylor
It ill lies in the mouth of my right hon. Friend to begrudge me a trip to the Caribbean, which was non-stop hard work. I never had a moment's relaxation, as I visited all the jurisdictions in the eastern Caribbean—

The First Deputy Chairman
Order. I have slackened the reins somewhat, and the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) has talked about the Law Lords, but we must get back to the new clauses, which are more narrow than the subject that the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) is addressing.

§ Mr. Taylor
I apologise to the Committee, Mr. Martin, but I was provoked.

The First Deputy Chairman
Order. If the hon. Gentleman is intervening, it is a rather long intervention, and I wish to see the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) back on his feet.

§ Mr. Brady
rose—

§ Mr. Garnier
You want me back on my feet, Mr. Martin, and I shall obey you. Before very long, I shall get back to my seat, but I wish to express my genuine support for the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring. I do not yet have a firm view about which new clause is better, and whether the declaration should be of a sessional length, a 1300 parliamentary length or for life, but I accept the arguments of hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) about the need for declarations to be made. I trust that the Committee will guide me further on the length of time for which they should be made.
I run the risk of crossing you, Mr. Martin, but, contrary to your ruling a moment ago, I think that the role of all Members of the interim House of Lords, in all their guises as legislators and judges, must be considered under new clause 26. On that basis, and having expressed some of my concerns in a gentle, acceptable and interesting way—

§ 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 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 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.
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?

§ Mr. Fallon
The following might be one test of participation. Would my right hon. Friend say that he had been participating in a debate on these new clauses if he were able to vote for them? Is he participating in this Committee to that extent?

§ Mr. Forth
That raises a series of issues, which my hon. Friend is right to raise. Is the mere act of voting a sufficient indication of participation to satisfy the criteria?
I do not want to labour the point; I wanted to reinforce the remarks of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, which were worth reinforcing, so that my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset will—I hope—seek to satisfy the Committee on them before we vote. I hope that he can, because I want to support the new clause. However, I shall need further persuading before being able to do so.

§ Mrs. Beckett
The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) opened the debate with an echo of our Second Reading debate in which, having accused the Government of wanting to kick the reform of stage 2 into the long grass, he came up with a long list of things that should have been considered before we did anything at all, which would probably have taken at least 10 years. In tonight's debate, he again said that he thought that this process should have begun with careful consideration, from first principles, of the role of Parliament. He then said that, having given the matter some such consideration, the Opposition strongly believed that there should indeed be a second Chamber.
In that, as in several other matters, there is not much dispute between hon. Members on opposite sides of the Chamber. Much earlier in our debates on the subject, I understood an hon. Member—I shall have to rely on Hansard to bring his proper description—to say in an intervention that he was in principle a unicameralist.

§ Mr. Garnier
I believe that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells).

§ Mrs. Beckett
The hon. and learned Gentleman may well be right, and I am grateful to him. Many Labour Members have said that they are unicameralists, but the Government are not making that case any more than the Opposition are doing so. We therefore begin with common ground in that all or most of us take the view that, to perform its role properly, Parliament needs not only this Chamber, but a second Chamber.
1304 It is slightly sad that we then entered more contentious territory, with the ritual—usually ill-founded—denunciations of the Government, based on dubious statistics or none. However, it would be wise not to detain the Committee on that subject, because it was not germane to the debate; I even wondered whether the denunciations had been put in to flesh out a not very long contribution.
In the course of that ritual denunciation, the hon. Member for Woodspring asserted that the Government should have focused from the outset not on the composition of a second Chamber, but on its role and functions. On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) pointed out that, throughout the decades-long history of discussions on reform of the House of Lords, when proposals were made to reform its role or powers, it was suggested that the composition should be reformed first—and when proposals were made to reform the composition, it was said that we should start with its role and functions, so it seems impossible to satisfy those who are nervous about all reform. We then moved on to the issue of the basic points made—or purported to be made—in the new clauses and the amendment, all of which, as the hon. Member for Woodspring identified, have the same theme, although in slightly different contexts.
Most of us would not disagree with much of what has been said in the debate. The Government are as anxious as Conservative Members to have an effective transitional House and to have a second Chamber of genuine working peers, and I do not believe that anything that has been said from the Labour Benches in these debates or on any other occasion could in any way suggest that the Government do not want an effective second Chamber.
I now make a confession to the Committee that I thought never to make, which may not fall very pleasantly on the ears of the hon. Member for Woodspring. For the first time in my life, I agreed with most of what the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said. I hope that I do not hurt the right hon. Gentleman's feelings too much by saying so, but I entirely concur with his argument, which I fear is that, however unexceptionable may be some of the basic points made in the context of these new clauses, they are pointless because they are completely ineffectual.

§ Dr. Fox
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. She speaks about an active second Chamber. As guidance to the Committee, can she say whether the Government believe that such a Chamber should be less powerful than the current one, as powerful as the current one, or have more powers than the current second Chamber?

§ Mrs. Beckett
I think that I referred to an effective second Chamber—although the hon. Gentleman may be right, I may have used the word "active" as well. I do not quarrel with it.
The current situation is anomalous in so many ways that it would take a tedious length of time to delineate them. The anomaly rests not only in the composition, but in the fact that the House of Lords, as it is constituted, has a panoply of powers, which it feels impelled to obey a self-denying ordinance not to exercise. All that seems potentially worthy of reform.
The precise nature of those reforms, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is a matter for another day and for another stage of discussion of these matters. I do not 1305 propose to be diverted into them now, even if you allowed me to do so, Mr. Martin, and I am pretty confident that you would not.

§ Mr. Tyrie
Does the right hon. Lady think that the interim House is more likely to be able to exercise the powers in respect of which she says that peers are exercising a self-denying ordinance, or less likely to exercise those powers than the present Chamber? Specifically, does she think that the introduction of more than 100 new Labour peers at four times the average annual rate of appointment this century is likely to lead that Chamber to be more effective in independent scrutiny of the Government, or less?

§ Mrs. Beckett
Yet again, we have an example of the nonsense talked by Opposition Members about these matters, although the hon. Gentleman strays even further than most of the debate has done. I do not envisage the transitional Chamber behaving in any particularly different way from the way in which the second Chamber behaves now.
The hon. Gentleman's second point is ludicrous. First, I am sure that as he has clearly spent some time studying these matters, he is extremely conscious of the fact that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has created a number of new peers, only half of whom were creations of our party. The rest were creations on behalf of other parties. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman must be equally aware that, if there were a proposal to make a large number of creations, it would be only in an attempt to remedy the gross imbalance created by decades of Conservative Prime Ministers creating twice as many peers from their own party as from our party, despite their enormous in-built majority among hereditary peers.

§ Mr. Tyrie
rose—

§ Mrs. Beckett
I do not intend to stray much longer on this point, and I am not sure that you will let us do this, Mr. Martin, but I shall give way again.

§ Mr. Tyrie
What the right hon. Lady says is factually incorrect. Since the introduction of life peers in 1958, no Prime Minister has ever appointed more than half from his own side. It has always been less than half. The present Prime Minister is the first Prime Minister ever to appoint more than half. The current rate is 53 per cent. Is that not a gross breach of all precedent in the appointment of life peers?

§ Mrs. Beckett
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is well aware of the facts, and I do not know why he is twisting about to deny them. Of the creations that have been made, 40 to 48 per cent. were creations of his party, and about half that for our party, despite the fact that the Conservatives already have an enormous in-built majority among the hereditary peers.
I am conscious of the demands on the Chamber and of the other brief points that I want to make. The provisions in the new clauses are not unworthy, but it would be pretty pointless to put them into effect as legislation because they are ineffectual and they raise as many questions as they answer.
How is the willingness of a Member to serve to be defined? The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) raised that matter. There is no mechanism to check 1306 whether the declaration is genuine or just a passport to membership. How would the required standard of involvement be judged on an objective basis? There is nothing in the new clause about that.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) said in an intervention and in his remarks, there is in the new clause no sanction for failing to meet that standard, even if one could be devised. Although not unworthy, the clause adds nothing to the Bill.
The key point that we are anxious always to bear in mind is that, with the removal of the hereditary peers, the House of Lords will become a more workmanlike place. That is right and proper. It is an aim that we all share. All the aspects of work singled out in the new clause are perfectly worthy in themselves. We recognised the importance of that work in our White Paper. Nothing in our proposals for the transitional House or for the longer term suggests that the Government envisage that those will not continue to be functions fit for the second Chamber to carry out.
6.30 pm
I remind both the hon. Member for Sevenoaks and the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) that the Government do not propose to change the way in which matters are handled. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst asked how we could reflect the substance of the new clause. With respect for the worthy motives that might have lain behind tabling it, we cannot reflect its substance because, to be honest, it does not have any.
I am conscious of the fact that Conservative Members are strongly of the view that unnecessary material should not be put on the statute book. It is a view that I share, and that is why I advise the Committee, should the Opposition press the matter to a Division, to reject the new clause.

§ Mr. Letwin
I assure the Leader of the House that we shall push new clause 26 to a vote in due course.
The background to this debate, one of the best that we have had in Committee, is clear, and has become clearer during the Committee stage. First, the Bill creates a second Chamber that poses as interim. By denying Opposition amendments and new clauses, the Government have made it perfectly clear, and in confirming their refusal to produce a timetable made it clearer yet, that they have no idea how long that Chamber will last, and that, for all they know or care, it could be permanent.
Secondly, it has become clear during our debates that there are no measures in the Bill and nothing in the Government's plans to increase the ability of the second House, which the Bill re-creates, to check the Executive, despite the fact that the Government have been wholly unable and unwilling to deny that the greatest problem of our constitution today is the Executive's overwhelming power.
Thirdly, and most importantly, throughout our debates, we have made it ever more clear that, by removing half the working Members of the other place, the Bill goes a long way towards weakening rather than strengthening the second Chamber. It weakens not its official role, but its ability to fulfil that role in reality. It makes it consciously and intentionally a less effective Chamber.
1307 New clause 9 on salaries and expenses offered the Government another chance to do something to remedy the deficiency that they have brought about by enabling their lordships, reduced in numbers as they will be, to do something about the matter by attending the Chamber more frequently, but the Government rejected that too.

§ Mrs. Beckett
One reason why none of those points was answered in the debate is that none was germane to the debate. The hon. Gentleman is winding up the previous debates that we have already had.

§ Mr. Letwin
With respect to the right hon. Lady, they are highly germane because they form the background to the debate.
The debate on new clause 24 and its accompanying new clauses was the Government's final test, which Ministers and Labour Members have fundamentally and utterly failed.

§ Mr. Stevenson
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Letwin
If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall not, because I am conscious of the time. I shall give way later if I can.
My hon. Friends, who have made many excellent contributions to the debate, have properly castigated their Front-Bench spokesmen for the weakness of the new clauses. They have pointed out that they are less than perfect. My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), perhaps most notably my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) have all asked why the new clauses did not have more teeth. I think that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) made the same point.
We accept that the new clauses are by no means as strong as they might have been, but it is extraordinary that the Leader of the House should argue that it is not proper to have this modest, slight addition to the Bill on the grounds that it is incomplete and imperfect. If incompleteness and imperfection were guarantees of not entering law, and a guarantee that the Government would not wish something to enter the law, the Bill would never have come anywhere near the House. The Government, pre-eminently in Britain's history, are engaged in constitutional reform which, on their own admission, is incomplete and imperfect.
It is extraordinary that the right hon. Lady can summon up the gall to come to the Dispatch Box and argue that, with all the resources at her disposal, she is unable to improve on new clauses which she herself says—I fear that I must doubt the sincerity of her utterance—are unobjectionable in their aims. If they are unobjectionable in their aims, but imperfect in their results and effects, she could, perfectly easily, have introduced better versions. In the spirit of consensus, which the White Paper so magnificently offers, we would of course have accepted such additions to our proposals, but this afternoon and this evening—in particular, during the past hour and a half or two hours of this debate—the Government have not shown the slightest intention of establishing an interim Chamber that will work better than the current Chamber.
1308 We said on Second Reading that the Government's intention was to create a twin poodle. They have poodlised this House; they intend to have a second poodle across the way. If they did not so intend, the last thing that they would have done is reject out of hand modest new clauses that sought purely to create a token—a token that would ensure at least that people were not introduced to their lordships' House merely as a matter of honour.
We sought solely an undertaking from the Government—and an undertaking from the people who will sit in the House of Lords—that the people whom they appoint will seek to fulfil a serious role in a serious Chamber, notwithstanding the fact that the number of working peers will have been halved without the slightest amendment to their conditions, which would have enabled them to go on fulfilling the role. That is a modest requirement. By rejecting it, the Government have amply demonstrated their bad faith in introducing a Bill that does nothing to increase the effective check on the Executive and much to belittle it.
I hope that Conservative Members will come willingly into the Lobby to support those points, notwithstanding the fact that, if we or the Government had been so minded, the new clauses could have been greatly strengthened. In this instance, the best is very much the enemy of the good. We shall vote to support the good, because that is much better than what the Government have been able to produce.

§ Dr. Fox
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.