Question: At this time of year there is always talk of invoking the Parliament Act. What is the actual process of forcing a measure through in this manner?

Lord Carter: It is always said at this time of year that the Parliament Act is going to be used. But it has only been used three times since 1949 - the War Crime Act of 1991 and twice when I was chief whip on the European Parliamentary Elections Act and the Age of Consent Act.

So it's very rarely used although it's always talked about in the overspill. It's invoked effectively by the House of Lords failing to pass a bill in one session.

All bills have to complete all their stages in both houses to become law. Then it is invoked by the government reproducing the bill in the second session - the next session of parliament.

But the bill which the government introduces in the Lords in the second session must be identical to the bill which left the Commons in the first session, which the Lords failed to complete.

If you take the Hunting Bill, that has run out of time in this session and if the government decides to use the Parliament Act, in other words to bring it back next session, then the bill which we will get in the Lords must be identical to the bill which left the Commons - which means a bill with a ban.

If the bill is introduced in the second session it will become law. Either the House of Lords will pass it, which in the case of the Hunting Bill is unlikely, or if it has not been passed by the House of Lords by the end of the session the Speaker has to give his certificate and one month after the end of that second session the bill becomes law.

Question: Is it right that such a highly contentious piece of legislation should be forced through using what seems like a bizarre piece of parliamentary procedure?

Lord Carter: It is not bizarre. It is there to ensure that the elected chamber eventually gets its way. That's central to the constitution.

It has been used on war crimes, that was an issue of conscience, on the age of consent, again an issue of conscience, the Hunting Bill is on a free vote so that is in the same category.

It isn't really the nature of the issue, it's the central constitutional point. Should a bill which has been passed by a very substantial majority by the House of Commons be rejected by the Lords? The government is in a minority in the Lords - it only has 28 per cent of the vote.

Constitutionally it is absolutely correct. If the Commons, and it is the Commons rather than the government, decide that they wish to have that bill made law then they have every right to use the Parliament Act and their lordships, after all we aren't elected, finally have to give way.

Question: Isn't there a chance that forcing a ban through despite peers' opposition could increase the likelihood of a campaign of civil disobedience?

Lord Carter: It's a strange situation. I don't think that any government could decide that it will not bring in a bill because there is a threat of people disobeying the law.

That would just give carte blanche to people to filibuster as they did on the Hunting Bill, or to get on the streets. It is obviously a fact that a government must bear in mind in a parliamentary democracy.

Question: The way the parliamentary session is structured leads to ping pong and horse-trading at this time of year. Doesn't that give the impression of late night deals, compromise and fudge. As a former chief whip can you suggest how the session could better be structured?

Lord Carter: It is not quite as bad as you make it out. What always happens is that a couple of big issues emerge - this year it's foundation hospitals and trial by jury. At the end of the day the House of Lords has a heavy responsibility because the opposition here can stop every government bill if they wish.

The government has only got 28 per cent if the votes. The opposition parties outvote the government by about 100. They could wreck the whole of the government's programme. Now we are a responsible House, and they recognise their responsibilities as an opposition.

After all we have a government a very substantial majority in the Commons, which has been confirmed in two elections.

At the end of the day, when it finally goes eyeball to eyeball, the Lords have to decide whether they are to hold up a whole bill, for example the Criminal Justice Bill, a lot of which with which they agree, on one single issue.

If they won't back down they leave the choice to the government whether to hold up the whole bill for a year or to drop that particular issue.

Question: Given that more and more legislation in the Commons is subject to programme motions - viewed as a de facto guillotine by some - shouldn't the Lords do more to scrutinise legislation?

Lord Carter: A written answer revealed that the amount of time spent on bills in the Commons and bills in the Lords over the last session, with the exception of the Licensing Bill...almost every bill this year received more scrutiny time in the Commons than the Lords.

Question: Would a more legitimate second chamber, with a partially elected element, not have the same right to scrutinise and pass legislation as the Commons?

Lord Carter: That's the central question of the argument for a partially elected or wholly elected second chamber. It is an extraordinary irony at the moment. We are told that we need an element of election in the Lords to make it more powerful. I have always voted for an appointed House.

If you look at the last parliament there were 1,650 divisions in the Commons and the government didn't lose one. In the same parliament there were 650 divisions in the Lords and the government lost 25 per cent.

It was the Lords in the last parliament, and indeed in this parliament, that held the government to account. If you make the House more powerful, what does that mean? That they have to win half the divisions? That they have to wreck bills?

The balance in my view is about right. I used to make this point to the Cabinet. Although I as chief whip didn't enjoy losing votes the first time the bill was in the House, what is absolutely crucial to the fate of a bill is what happens when it comes back?

We will have a good test in the next two weeks. When we see bills come back from the Commons with a lot of the Lords amendments rejected or amendments presented in lieu of the rejection, the Lords will have to decide to use the powers it undoubtedly had to wreck bills or they give way.

There will be concessions and there should be concessions. But after the government has made those changes, the bill should be let through.

On foundation hospitals, which we voted on yesterday, the government has made something like 100 amendments to try to meet the concerns that had been expressed.

The House of Lords decisively rejected the measure on report by 150 votes to 100. We shall have to see first what the government will do with that defeat and secondly whether they will send it back with an outright rejection of the defeat, or with some form of concession.

This is usually enough for their lordships to say "right, we've done our job, we've warned the government of the problems, they brought forward some sort of change, we think that's acceptable" and then let it through.

Question: Do you think it is likely we will see legislation to get rid of hereditary peers next session and then no further change for a decade at least?

Lord Carter: I wouldn't put a time on it. We have to see the bill first which removes the hereditary peers. The consultation continues up to December 12. The government then has to draft the bill and bring it forward.

Following that to be realistic there is little chance of another bill on Lords reform in this parliament if it lasts the normal four sessions. It is not impossible but it is unlikely. So to a certain extent you are correct.

If that bill is as the consultation paper seems to suggest - the removal of the hereditaries, the appointments commission on a statutory basis - that is likely to be all we will see in this parliament. What happens in the next parliament depends perhaps on the outcome of the next election.

Question: Watching the introduction of the Bishop of Durham was like watching a throwback to another age. Why in the 21st Century should members of the second legislative body continue to be known as barons and lords and not simply members of the House of Lords?

Lord Carter: That is in fact one of the changes which has been suggested. If you don't mind me saying so it's radical chic...it sounds great. I don't much mind whether I'm called Lord or ML.

In fact when we proposed that we would use the term ML it was pointed out by Gerry Fitt that's the acronym that they used to put on the electoral register in Northern Ireland and it meant Married Lodger.

Seriously, I don't think it much matters. Some people like the title, others don't care about. If you don't like it, don't use it. But we are ranked as Barons, all life peers are Barons. No doubt that is a change which if it isn't in the reform bill, there will be an amendment to that effect.

Question: Until recently there were two departmental ministers in the Lords. Is there a case now for examining the issue of "flying ministers" who can answer questions and talk to motions in both Houses?

Lord Carter: That has been suggested. Let's go back to the first point. The leader of the Lords and the lord chancellor have always been in the Cabinet. What is often not known is that the chief whip, I was chief whip for five years, I started to attend the Cabinet soon after 1997. I am sure that that is a precedent that won't be broken by any prime minister now.

The fact that we had an extra Cabinet minister, Baroness Amos who was for a short time the secretary of state for international development, was unusual but not unknown. Margaret Thatcher had David Young. It has happened in the past.

To go back to your second question, yes there is an argument. Our select committees often invite ministers.

There is a suggestion that ministers should come along when the bill is actually in committee. But that may be a step too far for the Commons.