Jack Straw: If we don't start electing some Lords, the House will wither away

Churchill made some of his most prescient speeches about the Nazi threat to a near-empty Commons chamber. In the early 1950s, government MPs were so supine that there was not one occasion in two years where any of them rebelled against the official whip. Many MPs had full-time jobs elsewhere - drifting along to the Commons after work. Even by the mid-1960s, the number of Parliamentary questions asked of ministers was a fifteenth of what it is today.

As Michael Ryle, a former senior Commons clerk, has said: "Simple factual comparison with the 1950s and early 1960s shows that Parliament - particularly the House of Commons - plays a more active, independent and influential role in Britain today than at any time for many years."

Ryle is right. MPs are more active, and through tools such as select committees - strengthened since 1997 - ministers are more accountable than they ever were. But Parliament must adapt to changes in society. For the first three post-war decades the state was much more pervasive than it is today, with vast, publicly owned industries and activities, from Rolls-Royce, coal, gas and oil companies to the Carlisle State Brewery and Thomas Cook.

However, though the state is now smaller, it is in many ways stronger. Economic success has made government more self-confident. IT has made it potentially more intrusive and the terrorist threat has given it hour-by-hour responsibility for keeping us safe.

I defend absolutely our system which usually allows the winning party a working majority and a clear run to deliver its manifesto. That's democracy - not the paralysing deadlock so typical of proportional representation systems. But strong government requires a strong parliament, and so does a more demanding, less deferential citizenry with higher aspirations.

Higher levels of scrutiny keep ministers and departments on their toes, and can improve the quality of governance overall. It is why the Modernisation Committee, which I chair, has had implemented major improvements in the way draft laws are examined, and has just embarked on a big inquiry into strengthening the role of the backbencher.

But if power between government and parliament is not a zero-sum game, neither need it be between the Commons and the Lords. Those who oppose any elected element in the Lords claim that the Lords would then replicate or rival the Commons - as if there's some fixed quota of powers between the two chambers - if one end gains, the other end loses. It's palpable nonsense.

All parties and both Houses agree on the "primacy" of the Commons and its electors - the exclusive right to determine which party is in government, to tax and spend, and the final (and prompt) say over legislation. Other countries' experience shows that you can guarantee the primacy of the first chamber whether the second chamber is elected, appointed, or a mix - a hybrid. We can do the same.

I favour a mixed - hybrid - new Lords, 50/50 elected and appointed, but because I want to see progress, not a repeat of the impasse of 2003 when the issue was last debated, I'll be voting for a 60 per cent and 80 per cent elected option too when it comes before the Commons this week.

A hybrid house is best because the Lords should do a different, complementary job to the Commons, but with a significant elected element. In this century the legitimacy of an all-appointed House will wither very rapidly.

The changes we have already made to the Lords - to remove most hereditary peers, and to ensure no party can ever have a majority - have already made the Lords more assertive. A reformed House would be even more active. Provided Commons primacy is guaranteed in practice, as it can be, that's a good thing. If it spurs the Commons to be even better at its job, that's a bonus.

Jack Straw MP is Leader of the House of Commons