Question: Voter apathy was a key issue at the recent general election. Do you think public perceptions of the House of Lords as an out-dated institution had a role to play in this apathy towards the political system in general?

Lord Williams: I don't think apathy in the general election had anything to do with the House of Lords. I think it was partly because people were genuinely content with the Labour government. I think young people didn't feel the need to vote and I think because it had been suggested so often in the media that the government was bound to be re-elected that people didn't turn out. So I don't think that had anything to do with the Lords.

I do think though this mis-perception that the House of Lords is hopelessly out of date, I think that's partly our own fault. If you're ever in the newspaper, the photograph put in is one of you in your robes when you were sworn in. And contrary to the popular misapprehension we don't actually sit there in ermine and rabbit fur, we actually sit there in perfectly ordinary suits. So I think we ought to be a good deal more positive about our telling people the very good work that we do.

Question: How would you like the public to engage more with the House of Lords?

Lord Williams: Partly it's through the media - we've got to look to colleagues in the media and say look, this actually was a very good debate. Things like stem cell for instance, I don't think you could have had a better quality debate, in any other institution in the world. You've got bishops, doctors, academics, and people who are just talking as informed, conscientious informed lay people. I also think a lot of it is just being a lot more open and available. And we are currently much more accessible to people - on the net. A lot of it I think is education, being willing to engage with school children, young voters, many of whom feel alienated from a political process generally, not just the Lords.

Question: You said the House of Lords needs to change its composition. What do you think would make the best composition?

Lord Williams: The Royal Commission spent a lot of time, as you know, and went to a lot of trouble asking for people's views. And they came to the conclusion that a partly elected House would be best. I think that's right. I think the important thing is to go back to first principles - what do we want the House of Lords to do? And I think it should scrutinise government conduct rigorously, it should be very careful in the provision of new legislation, of which there is an enormous mass. And also, offer an opportunity for non-party political, non-partisan debates on important questions, like euthanasia, like stem cell research.

Question: Constitutional reform groups such as Charter 88 say it would be more democratic if the majority of the Chamber were elected. What's your response to that?

Lord Williams: I think, if they wouldn't mind my saying so gently, it's a mistake to think that every component of every democracy needs to be elected. I don't think it does. I think what we need to focus on is what sort of House do we want? Now at the moment in two consecutive general elections, the government has got a very substantial majority in the Commons. Do we want a situation where both Houses would be controlled by a very very powerful central government? And it doesn't matter to me, in all conscience, whether it's a strong Conservative or Labour government that is thriving. I think you do need checks and balances and I think that where you get them best is in a partly elected and partly appointed House.

Question: Do you think that if there was a majority or totally elected second chamber, you could have a US style Congress situation where the House of Representatives and House of Senate effectively rule each other out?

Lord Williams: You could easily do that. And I think the past history of the United States, of which I'm very fond - and I'm just reading a lot books about Mr Clinton at the moment and his relationship with Congress - makes it very very difficult indeed. After all, the contract here between the government and the voter is by and large our manifesto, which we will do our utmost to deliver. Now how do you do that if you've got an elected second chamber of the same structure throughout? I don't think it's manageable. And in any event I think the work of the House of Lords in some ways is much more subtle and sophisticated than that. It needs to revise - very often legislation comes to the Lords when it's not in perfect order. You do need independent challenges. Now how do you run elections these days? As far as I'm aware they're all controlled by the party political machine. I think there are some dangers there. Look at the judiciary system for instance. It's an enormously important constituent part of any democracy. We don't elect judges nor should we.

Question: What proportion of peers do you think should be elected?

Lord Williams: Well at the moment as you know discussions are going on between Wakeham options A, B and C. I think the principle is clear as Margaret Jay made it plain on many occasions. We accept the thrust of Wakeham, we're perfectly willing to discuss exactly the proportion of those who'll be elected.

Question: And the electoral system?

Lord Williams: Again, that's something that we've got an open mind about. I'm quite happy to listen to anyone. I've asked Lord Strathclyde and Lord Rodgers of the Conservatives and the Lib Dems for their views - all of which, I'm happy to take on board.

Question: Do you think the public will really get engaged in these elections if they are simply choosing a small minority of people sitting in the second chamber?

Lord Williams: I hope they do, but I accept your implication. It's our job actually to explain the importance of a reform in the re-invigorated House of Lords. It's a very important part of the constitution.

Question: Baroness Jay said in July 2000 that the government intends to set up a joint committee to have cross party talks on the future of the Lords. In July you said we don't see a role for a joint committee. Why the change of heart?

Lord Williams: There's no change of heart. In fact what Margaret said was quite specific. 'We aim to establish a joint committee of both Houses to consider the parliamentary implications of the Royal Commission'. Unfortunately there was no consensus with the other parties on establishing a Joint Committee on that basis - parliamentary implications essentially means how does one House relate to the other? that is, lets look at the parliamentary implications of reform. What we're not willing to do is to go back and cover all the ground that the Royal Commission has already covered.

Question: Why are the other parties so angry then. They claim that they were promised one kind of consultation but getting a different kind altogether?

Lord Williams: Yes, that's unfortunate really but it's important to look at what was actually said. I think it's page 35 of the Modernising Parliament document that was published, after all, as long ago as January 1999: 'Once the Royal Commission has reported, the government will then establish the proposed Joint Committee of both Houses, to examine the Parliamentary implications of the Commission's work'. I don't think anything could be plainer than that. And in fact Margaret again repeated that on the 24 January 2000 in the House when she was asked this question, and made it perfectly plain. What failed last year was that no one could agree on the terms of reference. If you can't agree on the terms of reference, you can't have a committee.

Question: Are the Lib Dems and the Tories the obstruction to agreeing on these terms and conditions?

Lord Williams: We were unable to reach agreement and their contention, I think, is that we ought to go back with a completely blank sheet of paper and go over all the work that Lord Wakeham's Royal Commission did.

Question: In planning Lords reform, how keen are you to get representatives of other Christian churches and other faiths to sit in the Lords?

Lord Williams: I personally am very keen since I have an interest in it, which I declare on the register, since I am a baptised and confirmed member of the Church in Wales, which having been established in the early 1920s has no direct representation in the Lords. As you know the Bishop of Oxford is a man, I think, with enormous quality and very highly respected - he was on the Commission and he suggested that the number of bishops of the Church of England should go down from 26 to 16.

Question: Do you favour that approach?

Lord Williams: Yes I do. You asked me for my personal opinion and I've tried to be straightforward about it.

Question: Does that leave 10 places for other faiths?

Lord Williams: It might well do. I think it's easier with the Church of England because it is the Church of the State, by law established. One doesn't have that with other parts of the Christian church, or indeed other faiths.

Question: You said reform would open the way to modernisation of the way the House of Lords works. How would you like to see it change?

Lord Williams: I think that its work is increasingly important these days. Its work of scrutiny, for instance human rights, for instance constitution change, for instance the way that the government deploys its vast powers. Now I've set up the Leaders' group - we've had one meeting, a preliminary meeting, to look at how we actually conduct ourselves - in other words working purposes. And the questions are, (why don't we work in the morning?, why don't we work on Fridays?, is two and a half months off in the summer rather too languid? Should we really be trying to revise legislation at 3 o'clock in the morning when, quite honestly in my experience, people are utterly exhausted?And there's lots to learn from the experience of the devolved institutions. For instance I am visiting the Scottish Parliament on Tuesday 11 September to find out more about the effectiveness of their sensible working patterns. As you know, the Scottish Parliament works 'normal' office hours and links Parliamentary recesses to school holidays. They still achieve a high level of legislative scrutiny. Now I would like to look at all these things in a consensus mode to see if we can get some agreement.

Question: But you're view is that really the Lords should be looking to a more regular working week?

Lord Williams: Yes. Week, not simply day. I agree with you. I appreciate that some work needs to be done to the fabric of the day, but it does strike me as a rather long break two and a half months. I understand it for our colleagues in the Commons because they have constituencies but we don't.

Question: Would you like to see more women and people from ethnic minorities in the Lords as well?

Lord Williams: Oh undoubtedly. In fact, we are certainly not perfect but I think it's fair to say that anyone from the outside with a fair mind would have to say that since 1997 the place has been transformed. There are many many women and many more members from ethnic minority communities.

Question: Would you like to see improvements in peers' working conditions - more office space, more research allowance?

Lord Williams: I think that is a very good point and we've gone some way along that track. For instance we've now got free postage for peers. I know it sounds trivial, but it's not actually. We've now got updated allowances, and when we come back in October, every peer who wants one will be able to have a desk - not a room but a desk. Now these sound like very modest advances but they're not really. I think if you want people to do the work you've got to be given the equipment to do it.

Question: You've granted a review of the rules coming into force next year governing the business and financial interests of peers. Do you think this new code is a little too strict and too confusing?

Lord Williams: It's not confusing at all. Remember that Margaret Jay asked me to Chair a group which was two Conservatives, two Labour, one Lib Dems and one cross-bencher, and we produced this report, much of which reflects what we do already, and I think is the necessary pre-requisite for a renewed and transparent House.

Question: Lord Strathclyde said it's riddled with generalities and uncertainties. What's your message to him?

Lord Williams: I wonder what his specific criticisms were, because I can't remember hearing them. Of course in the nature of things, a code is going to be general, a light touch, something that the public might reasonably imagine would affect your judgement. Now you can't give chapter and verse on that because every situation is different, but that's the attraction of the House of Lords - it doesn't need to be spoon fed like an infant with every particular of every conflict of interest that might arise.

Question: Is it your job to make the House of Lords a more slick machine to pass government legislation?

Lord Williams: I think my job is to lead the House of Lords in a way which is non-partisan in so far as I possibly can. I've been there nearly 10 years, I like the place, I like the people who work there, I think it does good work, and the reason that I want to try and renew it is that I think it could do that good work better. Bearing in mind the legislative primacy of the Commons, we're entitled to question, we should question, we should revise and review and we should give an alternative. Now if we want to lumber on without renewing ourselves, we won't do that job properly and it's because I care about the place that I want it to renew itself.

Question: So you're going to bring in a healthy degree of independence?

Lord Williams: I have no power to bring in anything of course, as Dennis Carter, the Chief Whip, constantly reminds me. We still have about 30 less Labour peers even than the Conservatives. Of course if they vote with any section of the cross benchers, we are bound to fail. So we have to put the persuasive argument to see if we can take colleagues with us. And it has to be on the basis, I think, of a degree of independence in the second chamber is essential for the functioning of a healthy democracy.

.