This month I want to concentrate on a national rather than a local issue. On Tuesday wedebated a Report on the future of the House of Lords and on February 4th we shall be voting for the sort of second Chamber we wish to see in the future.

I shall be voting for a wholly appointment second Chamber and I wanted to take this opportunity of explaining why. I wonder how many of you are aware of the fact that in the House of Commons we really do not serve you as well as we should when it comes to scrutinising the laws the Government proposes. The reason is simply this. Because during the last five years the Government has been responsible for shortening the number of hours we sit, we do not have enough time to examine thoroughly all the many measures which Government churns out for our consideration. Whole chunks of important Bills leave the House of Commons completely unconsidered.

It is only in the House of Lords that there are members with sufficient time and expertise to consider them. The House of Lords is, in effect, a council of experts. Over the last forty-five years almost 1000 people have been appointed to the Second Chamber. Some of them have been former members of the House of Commons, and have brought a particular parliamentary expertise to their new role. But the majority have come from a whole range of walks of life – from public service, from science and medicine, from the arts and academic life, from the Armed Forces and farming, from business and industry – one could go on. This means that whenever any subject is discussed in the House of Lords there are men and women with real practical experience, many of them still active in their chosen field, who can contribute to the debate. I think, for instance, of Lord Winston (Robert Winston) or of Lord Condon (formerly Sir Paul Condon the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police) or of any of the former Chiefs of the General Staff. Added to them, of course, are the Bishops and the Law Lords. Collectively they make the House of Lords by far the most experienced Second Chamber in the world.

And yet the Lords is no challenge to the elected House. It does not have the power to veto legislation proposed by Government. It only has the authority to ask us to think again and, in certain extreme circumstances, to delay the passage of a Bill by up to a year.

It fulfils its role without costing you very much. Members of the House of Lords are unpaid part-timers motivated by the ideal of public service. If you have an elected House (and I wonder how many of you would be moved to turn out to vote) the new members would inevitably demand the same sort of salary and facilities that members of the House of Commons receive. But do you really want another group of paid party politicians? How many of the experts to whom I have referred, even those who do not belong to a political party, would stand for election? Precious few. And without belonging to a party very few would stand any chance of being elected.

So we would be replacing an effective and cost efficient institution with another Party political assembly. That is why I have been leading a campaign to try and ensure that the second Chamber remains appointed. Do not get me wrong. I do not believe that the present method of appointment is entirely satisfactory. I want to see an independent Commission to vet nominations. But I do believe that the present House of Lords has served us well; and I see absolutely no evidence that a Second Chamber of elected politicians would add value to the political process in the way that the present Second Chamber does. If the second Chamber is to be reformed it should be such a way that strengthens it in fulfilling its functions and not in a way that destroys its capacity to carry them out.