Question: You said recently that "We need to reflect the society that we purport to represent. In many respects we still look like an institution more suited to Gladstone's era. In short, we need a Parliament fit for the 21st century". But would you accept that if you were starting from scratch as Scotland and Wales have done, the House of Commons would look nothing like it does, sound nothing like it does and behave in pretty much no way like it does?

Peter Hain: Yes but we're not starting from scratch. The great advantage that Wales and Scotland have is they are starting from now.

But we're not, so what you have to do is modernise an existing structure with its own traditions.

And there are many traditions which are very valuable.

So I don't think you can just wholesale import the Scottish parliament or Welsh assembly's procedures into parliament. That wouldn't work and it wouldn't be desirable.

Question: Every year at this time the spill over results in horse-trading as the government scrambles to get its bills on the statute book before the end of the session. Isn't there a case for ending this - with a single session lasting as long as the parliament?

Peter Hain: I'm trying to encourage thinking within government that looks at a legislative programme over the lifetime of a parliament.

So that what a particular Cabinet minister gets in the first, second, third or fourth session is less about fighting and bidding desperately to get a number of bills from your department into parliament in a particular session and more about thinking about the approach in a more strategic fashion.

I don't know that a continuous session is the answer, but certainly looking in a more strategic way about government legislation and sequencing needs to be done.

Question: Labour's a modern political party not afraid of radical constitutional change. But yet every year the Queen - the embodiment of the hereditary principle you're so contemptuous of in the House of Lords - has to turn up to read a speech written by you. How do you justify that in the 21st century?

Peter Hain: It's part of our tradition and part of our history and I don't think anybody serious has proposed abolishing it.

Question: But are you not opposed to the hereditary principle playing a role in parliament in the Lords?

Peter Hain: Yes but the Monarch has traditionally played this role, it happens to be in the Lords, it could have been in the Commons if there had been a different historical configuration. So I don't think that has anything to do with the hereditary principle.

The Queen doesn't sit in the Lords and make laws on the basis of the throne that she inherited. She delivers the Queen's speech, which she doesn't write, which is written by the government. It's a big difference.

Question: Is it not a least at least the sort of presentational issue which you touched on in your speech, in the sense that it harks back to the Victorian age or even further? Isn't there some way that that could be modernised?

Peter Hain: To be frank what I'm concentrating on is the things that really matter to the average citizen in the way that they see parliament, in the way they relate to parliament and in the way that they identify with parliament or have access to it.

The system of parliamentary decision taking, that's my priority.

Question: But is it not one of the big showcases of parliament in the way the public see it?

Peter Hain: Yes and the public line the streets and watch the Queen coming in.

I've not had any representations to me about that or complaints.

Question: Is it time though to rethink the oath of allegiance to the Queen in the Commons. Shouldn't MPs be sent here to swear allegiance to their constituents?

Peter Hain: Well this is obviously a point of view. Again, to be frank, I think these things are peripheral to the main issue of making parliament better for the people.

Question: The majority of Britons do not attend church and a significant minority are not Christian. What is the justification for having religious leaders in the upper house?

Peter Hain: Because they are there. This is one of the issues that is raised in the consultation paper on the future of the Lords which the government published last week.

I know that some people feel very strongly that that shouldn't be the case, others say 'well, you know, whether this is right or wrong the church has not been disestablished and therefore has that historic role'.

But again, for me, that is not the central question about Lords reform. But we will listen to what people say and what the consultation produces.

Question: You've touched on the idea that "they are there" is a form of self-justifying tradition. Isn't tradition - "it's the way it's always been done" - an easy excuse?

Peter Hain: No, if we were starting with a clean sheet, who knows what the composition of the second chamber might have been or what its characteristics would be. But we are not starting off from that position.

Question: You have ruled out a wholesale review of the Commons' sitting hours. Given that many MPs who voted for change now regret that, isn't it time you gave them the opportunity to revert to the old regime if they so choose?

Peter Hain: You can't chop and change. We've only been sitting with these hours in actual Commons sitting time for about six months.

If you take a decision and only experience it for six months and suddenly want to turn on your head, I don't think that is a sensible way to do it.

I think we should see this through and review it. I have promised a review at the end of this parliament.

I don't know when the next election is going to be but it might be in between 18 months and two years away.

Now if that is the case that is a reasonable time frame for us to assess the pros and cons and for people then to say 'yes, we are now able to take a more settled view on it. We would either like it to continue or we don't like it'.

But I think the other thing is parliament is quite divided on this issue. And there was a settled decision.

I don't think it is good for the Commons to keep on chopping and changing its mind. Especially when the new hours haven't bedded down properly, if people haven't adjusted to them.

I think there are a lot of people who actually welcome the change as well as others who are very critical.

Question: But would you agree that many MPs have concluded modernisation has resulted in "unintended consequences"?

Peter Hain: Yes. Radical change is always difficult. If you're used to a settled pattern of life or work and then you get a big change it is unsettling.

But there was a decision taken for the rest of this parliament. That is what parliament voted for last October. And that, as far as I'm concerned, stands.

We will have the review when we are able to make a better assessment in another six months.

We haven't even gone through a full parliamentary session yet. We don't know how it's all going to work. I'd like to see that all through and then, as I say, we can have a look at it.

But I have said on the record that I'm open to suggestions as to how to deal with these teething problems.

For example people have been complaining about committees having to sit at 8.55 in the morning.

I've said I'm quite comfortable with committees having the power to sit at any time.

They can sit at 9.30, stop for questions, come back into the afternoon and sit into the evening if they want to. They have that power.

And I'm relaxed, happy and content if they exercise it to vary their start times to give House officials and others a little bit of extra leeway in the morning.

Question: How do you respond to criticisms of the recall of parliament in September as a "waste of time" (Eric Forth) and a "nuisance" (Gwyneth Dunwoody) that has got in the way of MPs' work?

Peter Hain: Well they were both members who objected to the September sitting before it happened.

So I don't find it at all surprising that they've criticised it now.

But let me say this: Why have there been none of the demands for a recall in parliament over the summer? Because we were coming back in September.

We were able to debate and vote on a whole series of key issues. An update on Iraq, the Prime Minister answering questions, Cabinet ministers like myself answering questions.

I find it very difficult to justify a situation where the House was in recess for 13 weeks.So I think the recess of seven weeks, still a pretty big chunk of time by most people's standards, would be seen as pretty fair and common sense.

Again, you are hardly into the September sittings and people are saying you should abolish them. Let's see what they are like next year and let's review the whole situation at the end.

Question: Are you saying that MPs are on "holiday" when the House is in recess?

Peter Hain: In the old days when I was a backbencher I may have taken a three-week holiday but the rest of the time I was pretty busy on constituency business.

When the House is in recess you can't question ministers, you can't get a statement from the Prime Minister on Iraq; you can't move a motion, as the Opposition were able to do censuring government policy.

It is not an issue about whether MPs are sunning themselves for 13 weeks, obviously they aren't.

The issue is whether parliament in September should be recalled to consider those matters where otherwise there would have been a gap for 13 weeks.

If you look back over recent years, parliament was recalled in September last year over Iraq. You just get a kind of ritual demand for a recall over July and August.

That didn't happen this year because we knew that were going to come back in early September and hold the government to account.

I would have thought from a democratic point of view that the members of the House and the average citizen would say it's a good thing that the government is happy to come back in September and, whatever the inconvenience to ourselves and to members, to hold ourselves accountable.

Question: Are the criticisms coming from an older generation of MPs welded to tradition?

Peter Hain: No I wouldn't say that. Somebody like Gwyneth Dunwoody is a very fine parliamentarian.

I have enormous respect for her because she comes from a parliamentary tradition which really values parliament.

She is a fierce proponent of the principle of the government being accountable to the Commons.

And I think that is good. It is something as the leader of the Commons I strongly agree with and admire.

I don't think it's an old fashioned view, it's a different view. But I just happen to disagree with it.

And in any case, I cannot see how you can demand immediate change without having even made a proper assessment of the September sitting.

Question: You voted for an elected element in the House of Lords. Do you hope to bring the issue back during your time as leader of the House?

Peter Hain: I don't know how long I'm going to be leader of the House.

The government has made it perfectly clear - and I strongly believe this and Labour Party policy reflects this - that we want to move to a democratic second chamber when, in the future, there is a consensus behind a particular option.

In the meantime we are taking action to remove the hereditaries and establish a system of appointment that is more independent, rather than every appointment being in the gift of the prime minister.

And I would have thought those two principles were an advance for democracy.

But the door is still wide open for future reform when we can assemble a consensus behind it. And I think at that point an elected second chamber in some form will come back into the fray.

In the meantime I regret the fact that my views did not prevail and we have got to make the best of what we have.

But if I can say one other thing, the House of Lords voted for a fully appointed chamber by a massive majority.

So I would find it absolutely extraordinary if the Lords now sought to block it when only in January the Lords overwhelmingly voted for a fully appointed chamber.

I assume if that were the case nine months ago it is still the case.

Such a big majority, it wasn't a narrow majority, I think we only lost the 80-20 vote by three votes. So it is not like a narrow thing in the Commons.In the Lords at least a bill should get a fair wind I hope.

Question: Do you think it will?

Peter Hain: Well if the Lords at least are being consistent, yes.

Question: But as one of your predecessors Robin Cook has pointed out, the option that is going through now is the one that received the least support in the Commons. What does that say about democratic legitimacy?

Peter Hain: Well people know - and you have been kind enough to remind me - where I voted.

That's what I believe in. But I am also a realist and I would rather make progress to have a more modern House of Lords than one with a lot of hereditaries.

And I would also like a House of Lords which in its composition better reflected opinion in the country.

Now we have a landslide majority in the Commons and we have 28 per cent of the vote in the Lords. This can't be right.

The proposals we have put forward, of course, say that the government should never have a majority in the Lords.

So we're not suggesting that we should translate a landslide majority in the Commons into the composition of the Lords.

But the Lords should better reflect the state of public opinion and political representation as decided at the previous general election than it does now.

Question: Has the cause of an elected House of Lords taken a further blow with the death of Lord Williams?

Peter Hain: I think Gareth Williams' death, beside being an awful shock to many of his friends like me and his family, has deprived the Cabinet of one of its most brilliant members, has deprived the Labour Party of an outstanding figure and deprived the House of Lords of one of its most popular ever leaders on all sides.

So yes, I do think that Gareth Williams' loss, in terms of taking legislation through the Lords whatever it might be in, is a big loss and his successor will find it hard to fill his shoes.

And specifically on an elected Lords, well he voted for an elected Lords like I did and as a very powerful advocate - he strengthened the case.

Question: If turnout falls below 50 per cent at the next election will there be a crisis of legitimacy for parliament?

Peter Hain: American legislators get elected on less than 50 per cent, it isn't pretty, it's not desirable, in fact it's depressing from a democratic point of view.

We have free elections; people are entitled to vote. If they do choose not to exercise that vote I do think it undermines the legitimacy of parliamentary democracy if the turnout falls.

But you can't quarrel with the results because the other 50 per cent could have voted.

Question: Do you think the political community is as concerned as it should be about this?

Peter Hain: I think everybody, of whatever party, is concerned about falling turnout, yes, I do.

That's one of the other reasons why we've embarked on reconnecting parliament with the people.

Question: You've had a few months doing the two jobs of Welsh secretary and leader of the House, how are you finding the workload?

Peter Hain: Well it's manageable. It's quite tough but it's manageable and I intend to keep going to the best of my ability.

I can't think of any issue or any policy decision where there has been any democratic loss to Wales.

On the contrary, in its way me being at the centre of the government's legislative programme has actually been of great benefit to Wales.

Now in terms of the leader of the Commons the two jobs actually fit quite nicely together.

I can think of other Cabinet jobs where that would be more difficult. But not in the case of the leader of the Commons.

Question: It is an unprecedented situation. But it if you were moved to another Cabinet job do you think you would take the Welsh portfolio with you? Has a solution been thought through?

Peter Hain: I've only been in this job three months, I'm not contemplating moving.

So I wouldn't want to anticipate what might happen in the future.

I'm enjoying doing both. Representing Wales is fantastic for a Welsh MP like me and being leader of the House is a great and senior Cabinet job as well.

I'm enjoying doing what I'm doing and I'll just keep working all the hours that it is necessary to do it.

Question: What are you hoping to hear from the Richard Commission when it reports?

Peter Hain: I really don't know. It was set up without consultation with the government.

We've co-operated with it but I really don't know what to expect.

I have said and I'll repeat now that that I think it's proposals should be grounded in the reality of the improvement of public services, quality of life and the economic strength of Wales, rather than just reflecting the ideas of the constitutional anoraks.

I think people will accept change if it can be shown to improve decision making and quality of life in Wales.

I don't think people are going to be interested in change for its own sake.

Question: Is there enough support for the assembly in Wales now to give it equivalent powers to the Scottish parliament?

Peter Hain: I neither see a case nor do I see any really substantial popular backing for the Welsh assembly to have tax raising powers or to have fully legislative powers along the lines of the Scottish parliament.

Plaid Cymru believe this but then they believe in the road to independence and separation.

And I think if you have tax raising powers you'll have to have a referendum. And I don't sense any enthusiasm in Wales for another referendum.

You would have to have a referendum because the Scots had a referendum on tax raising powers.

It would be completely indefensible and unprincipled not to have a referendum if you wanted Wales to have tax raising powers.

It's funny how those who advocate it don't seem to want to have a referendum.

Question: Looking ahead to Bournemouth, is this going to be Labour's hardest conference yet in power?

Peter Hain: Yes, I think so. But you know in a way the problems we've hit at this stage in government, if you think back to previous governments - John Major's, Mrs Thatcher's, Jim Callaghan's, Harold Wilson's, Edward Heath's - in mid-term, in their first mid-term, all these government's had massive crises.

We've had our first big problem in our seventh year in our second term. It was going to come sooner or later and this conference is a reflection of that.I think what it means is that we've got to bind the government and the party back together and make sure that they don't become unbound again.

Question: How do you go about binding them back together when the prime minister is saying that on these big touchstone issues of Iraq, top-up fees and foundation hospitals he is not for turning back?

Peter Hain: I think we need to listen, we need to discuss and we need to explain. And I think we need to use our policy forum, our policy making process in a more pro-active and creative way.

If we do that I think there will be greater understanding of where the government is going and also an ability of the government to reflect in policy changes better ideas and better views from the party.