Joyce Quin: Why should we abandon democracy?

Soon, probably in January, Parliament will make a decision about the future of the House of Lords. Over 300 MPs have already signed a House of Commons motion in favour of a wholly or largely elected House of Lords. Yet arguments against electing all or a substantial number of the members of a reformed second chamber continue to be put and debated.

The three most frequently advanced arguments against election are these. First, that an elected Upper House will automatically seek to increase its powers to the detriment of the Lower House and thereby cause legislative and political gridlock. Second, elections will mean fewer independents and more party hacks. Third, disenchantment with the political process is currently so great that the electorate will simply spurn the opportunity to turn out and vote.

The first argument is simply not borne out by the evidence from second chambers in democracies elsewhere in the world. Over half of second chambers overseas are directly elected and they are not gridlocked. Neither are they demanding or gaining new powers. On the contrary, they live with the powers they have been given.

In the case of the United States, however, the situation is very different. The US is a presidential rather than a parliamentary system. It is based on the principle of the separation of powers between legislature and executive. Crucially, the two arms of the legislature – Senate and House of Representatives – have been given co-powers by the Constitution. This stands in stark contrast to the scrutinising, revising and delaying role of the House of Lords and other second chambers in parliamentary systems. Indeed, in the US it is the Upper House – the Senate – that has the greater strength and influence.

Looking round the world, there is no straightforward correlation between direct election of the second chamber and its willingness to challenge the primary chamber. Indeed some unelected second chambers are as capable of opposing the primary chamber as elected ones. The Canadian Senate, for example, which has a bizarre non-elective method of choosing its members, has challenged and blocked legislation on occasions. Our own House of Lords has inflicted many defeats on government, although its target has far more often been Labour governments than Conservative ones.

The second argument about independence as a desirable characteristic of a second chamber needs to be taken seriously. Very few would wish to see the members of a second chamber be mere clones of the primary chamber. Various ways of ensuring that this does not happen are possible. A proportional system of election – preferably on regional open lists as advocated by the Royal Commission, the House of Commons Public Administration Committee and the Government's White Paper – would ensure that the political complexion of the second chamber would not be identical to the House of Commons. Longer or staggered terms of office would have a similar effect, as would a system in which membership of the second chamber was clearly not a route to ministerial office.

Among the existing members of the House of Lords are those who are experts in various fields, and many fear their loss if direct elections are introduced. This fear can be exaggerated. Some existing experts are not regular attendees, and there are alternative ways of ensuring that they can continue to have an influence in the political and legislative process. In an elected house with much smaller numbers than at present (most directly elected upper houses overseas are less than half the size of the primary chamber) it would be possible to co-opt experts on to committees. Indeed that might be a better use of their time than the current system.

It is ironic that a number of existing members of the House of Lords speak against direct elections on the grounds that "we do not want more party politicians," as Geoffrey Howe did in this newspaper recently. Most of those putting forward that view are themselves party politicians of long standing and take the party whip in the House of Lords.

The third argument put forward with increasing frequency is that people are uninterested in politics and would fail to vote. Indeed Lord Howe, to illustrate this point, quoted the fall in general election turnouts from 84 per cent in 1950 (the second-highest turnout since 1900) to 59 per cent in 2001 (the second lowest since 1900). Such a trend has not been constant, however. At times, because of the particular political climate, or because of the likelihood of a change in government, participation has been greater.

Furthermore, recent experiments in different voting methods have revealed that it may not be a simple lack of interest but more a fact that our traditional way of voting, in person and on a Thursday, no longer fits in well with today's lifestyles. There is no doubt that Parliament must get the balance right between elected bodies at various levels – local, regional, national and European. However the principle of election is at the heart of our system of government and our democracy, and should not be abandoned.

The author is MP for Gateshead East and Washington West and a member of the Joint Committee on Reform of the House of Lords