Geoffrey Howe: The last thing we need is more party politicians

As a law-making chamber, the Commons has almost given up; the Lords is increasingly effective

If the answer to the question is more elected politicians, then you are asking the wrong question.

That harsh judgement (from a former Prime Minister, John Major) is steadily gaining support, if one is to judge by the slumping unpopularity of the polling booth. The percentage of the electors voting in general elections has fallen, in my lifetime, from 84 per cent in 1950 to 59 last year. Local and European elections tell the same story. So too last month's derisory mayoral votes.

Small wonder that MPs in the Commons Public Administration Committee have been seeking the reason for this "widespread public disillusionment". Earlier this year they found the answer: the "virtually untrammelled control of the House of Commons by the Executive". This "dominance of Parliament by... the political party machines", they stressed, must be reduced and not increased.

This point is crucial to any consideration of the future of Parliament. For "dominance by the Party machines" is certainly not the case in the Lords (where no one party now has a majority).The "elective dictatorship", as Quintin Hailsham described it, is driven by the tight discipline that now characterises the elected House.

Yet the fundamental change proposed for the Upper House is the introduction of elected members. This is the one change most likely to introduce the very partisan structure that makes the Commons the instrument of elective dictatorship. That's why we need to think again – and hard.

In the Commons, crude adversarialism and fawning cronyism have lowered esteem for MPs. Membership has become so professionalised that MPs with any real experience of business and professional or trade union work are fewer than ever. Prime Minister Blair has difficulty in finding cabinet ministers with any experience of having managed anything. Even his two Attorney Generals he has been obliged to find in the Upper House.

In the result, the Commons' efficiency has declined as sharply as its reputation. Only select committees have grown in influence. As a law-making chamber, the Commons – with automatic guillotines curtailing discussion of most Bills – has almost given up.

By contrast, the Lords has become increasingly effective. Last year's Anti-Terrorism Bill was stripped of illiberal provisions only because it was scrutinised over seven full days in the Upper House. So too with this session's Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill. And even on important policy questions, it is in the Lords, and not the Commons, that many of the crucial debates now take place.

All this may sound like special pleading from a member of that Upper House. But that judgement has been endorsed by the Commons. Its Public Administration Committee makes no significant proposals for change in the Second Chamber's role or powers. On the contrary, it stresses the Lords' "considerable virtues, which should be preserved". This echoes the case made alike by the Wakeham Royal Commission and by the Government's own reform White Paper.

The argument for "modernisation" now rests solely on "lack of legitimacy". But very little remains, even in today's House, of that supposed lack of legitimacy. Heredity is on the way out. So too is any built-in party bias, likewise the notion that membership of the Second Chamber depends significantly on "patronage".

Very few of the Life Peers appointed since 1958 could fairly have been seen as "cronies". The great majority have been talented people, from different backgrounds and with different skills, who now make up today's formidable array of independence and expertise. Any remaining suspicion of placemanship will be ended by insistence that all future appointments (including party nominations) must be subject to effective scrutiny and approval by a truly independent, statutory appointments commission.

All this challenges the belief that election should be seen as the only guarantee of "legitimacy" of membership of the Second Chamber. The argument looks increasingly threadbare, in face of growing disenchantment with the elective process. Even more important, the present positive qualities of the Upper House would be seriously diminished by change along these lines. The immensely wide range of experience and expertise – and, above all, independence – depends upon a wide spread of part-time (and unpaid) members. It would indeed be truly "outlandish" to expect many (if any) of these eminent men and women to stand for election.

No one should imagine that any peers are defending the status quo out of self-interest. The remaining hereditaries are reconciled to their departure. Existing life peers are not threatened with removal. Their terms of service are certainly topics for discussion, as reform proceeds – but not extinction.

I challenge the wisdom of introducing elected members into the Second Chamber because of my conviction that this would accelerate the declining effectiveness of Parliament, with the Commons increasingly occupied by full-time politicians and the Lords facing a fresh threat of decline in the same direction. That would not be an enhancement of our democracy.

The writer was Chancellor of the Exchequer (1979-83) and Foreign Secretary (1983-89)