As a former Government special adviser, and the perfect embodiment of the wrong kind of politician, it is perhaps appropriate that I have a chance to contribute. I welcome the debate and the report. What is encouraging, as evidenced by so many Conservative Members speaking up in favour, is the fact that a democratic solution is where the momentum is, and there is clear travel in that direction.

We have an opportunity to carry through Lords reform because there is more that unites people who want a more democratic House of Lords. We must not allow that opportunity to be broken down, leaving us unable to find the compromise that has eluded us. Compromise is the watchword, because everyone will have to compromise eventually if we are to have a workable solution.

Even since the vote in the House that has been mentioned, feeling has swung decisively against an appointed House, which is clearly no longer an option. The broader context involves asking why this matter is important, and Mr. Clarke referred to that. Some people say, "Why is House of Lords reform important? There are more significant issues to deal with." However, it is right to put things in that broader context.

We live in an increasingly anti-politics era. There is a feeling out there that this place is not particularly well connected to the constituencies that we represent. The north-east vote on a regional assembly is the most obvious demonstration of that fact: people do not want more politicians, political institutions or structures; they want those that they have to work much harder and more cleverly for them. Everyone in this House and in the other place has to think about that and about how what we do here in going forward can be much more connected to the people who we seek to represent. If we fail to do that, it will damage our democracy in the long term.

We need a second House that is fit for purpose. I am absolutely confident that we could get much better value for money from the £66 million a year in tax pounds that we spend on running it if it was more democratic and regionally constituted so that the voice of the regions rang out through this place.

I am wholly committed to a more democratic second Chamber, and I am committed to one that may unsettle the way that we operate in the Commons—a Chamber that may push us and challenge established practice. Such practice can be flabby and some things that we do in the Commons can be too disconnected. Such change would be a good thing. This is the nub of the question that we are considering and which reformers have to deal with.

There is consensus in favour of election and in favour of preserving the primacy of the Commons. There is probably also consensus on the powers as they stand today being roughly appropriate. The issue involves the relationship between the two, and the way that Members are elected to the Lords will dictate how that relationship plays out.

Five parliamentarians or more have put their names to the report, and there are others here today who have far more experience of this place than I have. Reference has been made to people leaving office, but I would say to those who made that point that I have hopes to be in this place for some time yet and I do not necessarily want to be a Member of a House of Commons that is undermined, challenged or perhaps constantly threatened by the House of Lords. I refer people to page 11 of the report that has been issued this week, in which the committee acknowledges this point:

"However, there has been concern amongst some that the second Chamber could become 'too' legitimate, with the result that it challenged the House of Commons too frequently. Despite the existing safeguards to Commons' primacy, we acknowledge there is some foundation to these concerns."

The proposed system threatens to destabilise the balance and threatens the primacy of the House of Commons. People could argue that it would be more proportionate and, therefore, more democratic—that it would more reflect the will of the people. Therefore, when votes were passed in that place, they could be considered more legitimate. That presents problems to us as politicians, individually and as people who are accountable to their electorate.

The Achilles heel of the system we are considering is that it seriously threatens the primacy of the House of Commons. Any compromise solution must deal directly with that point. As I said in my intervention on my right hon. Friend Mr. Cook, I believe that the secondary mandate solution is the right compromise around which people can unite and that there is more support for it than has perhaps been reflected in the comments made so far in today's debate.