Harvard Law School in its note linked below talks us through the difficulties in defining religion whilst the HoL report is a good example of just how peers inform the legislative process as a matter of practise.

The difficulty in establishing a group identity is therefore self-evident.

The English Church has seen many changes down the centuries specifically in the 14th, 16th, 17th and 19th centuries. As the presence of clerics in the house is not to promote one faith group over another the constitutional position of the bishops should reflect this and they should consider loosing their automatic right to sit in the house as a group.

It would be down to the Lords Appointments Commission to appoint such clerics as it felt necessary to provide adequate representation of faith within acceptable legal definition in a multi cultural society.

Ref: The Complexity of Religion and the definition of
‘Religion’ in International Law
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss16/gunn.shtml
HoL: Religious Offences in England and Wales
First Report – Introduction and Background
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200203/ldselect/ldrelof/95/9501.htm
History of the House of Lords: English Church
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199798/ldbrief/ldhist.htm

The Library Note below talks of elected Law Lords.

Page 7, Para3: “Failure to provide a reliable body of law lords drew increasing criticism from the legal profession, which, following Brougham’s reforms, now expected professional work by the House as a court. Palmerston’s government decided to promote lawyers into the House of Lords by granting them life peerages.”

It goes on to say:

“Sir James Parke, a judge of the Exchequer Court, was created, in January 1856, Lord Wensleydale for life. Furious opposition from the Conservative members of the House forced the question of life peerages to the Committee for Privileges which ruled that the prerogative power could not create life peers.”

The HoL was abolished during the republican Protectorate:

Page 3, Para 4: ‘The end came when the Commons voted on 6th February 1649 “That the House of Peers is useless and dangerous and ought to be abolished.” The House was condemned as much for its judicial work as its legislative role.’

However this unicameral Parliament soon realised the need for a second chamber.

Page 3, Footnote 5: “During the Protectorate a Second Chamber was briefly established, from 1657 to 1659, consisting of members appointed for life by the Lord Protector.”

The thorny issue is that of electing retired ‘Law Lords’ to the house. The judiciary as a group cannot do this because of the separation but the legal profession might. However, one cannot imagine a judge coming up to retirement being nice to barristers just to become a peer. There is here, a clear case for appointment by a HoL Appointments Commission in an elected house.

The house would be wise to keep the door open to special case appointments.

Library Note: The Appellate Jurisdiction of the HoL (Nov 2009)
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-library/lln2009-010appellate.pdf

The start of a recognizable Parliament as we know it begins with a French rebel Baron (p18), Simon De Montfort. His Parliament of 1265 embraces suffrage by ensuring that all members are elected. This largely ends the practice of appointing members to the English Parliament until the arrival of the Life Peerages Act 1958.

The appearance of two separate houses of Parliament occurs on Sep 9, 1332 during King Edward III reign (p44) in a session titled “the affairs of France, and the King’s expedition”. One speculates that the reason for the separation was a pragmatic desire to make progress on the issues of war and commerce.

A house that does not enjoy suffrage in its controlling members has no legitimate right to exercise power or invest itself in the wellbeing of the nation by exercising such power. The mandate therefore to have an elected HoL draws from established historical precedent as a right to enjoy such powers that are granted to it from time to time by the constitution.

Having acquired elected status the house continues very much as it is except for the additional ability to manufacture and give scrutiny to any regulations that might accompany Parliamentary statutes and to take control of its electoral affairs.

The HoL has always represented the most powerful in society and their interests. However in contemporary society these magnates have changed from individuals to group identities. The expertise of the house has an intimate association with these groups and it is only proper that such groups should formally be able to influence the needs of the people through their Parliament as constituences.

The role of constituencies is to provide the best people to serve in the house. The term ‘best’ must be relevant to the need. If experience is required it should offer candidates with appropriate experience. If academic excellence is required then it too should be offered. In practice a combination of the two might best serve the house and its constituencies.

The prospectus allows for hereditary peers to move from individuals to group identities to best represent land. It also allows for life peers to become members of their constituencies as champions. Such peers could nominate champions to receive the writ of summons on their behalf and for the summons to transfer back to the hereditary peer upon demand. This would best serve the work life balance of peers that are employers. The champions would have to be approved by house management and could be members of other constituencies.

I offer this elixir of life to the house and commend it to the blog.

Gentlemen of the House of Commons: Hardback: Author; THS Escott.
BiblioLife (2009) ISBN-13:9781113016317, ISBN-10:1113016310
http://books.google.com/books?id=6wYJvg0CYIoC&pg

To me it is a medium where diverse points of view can be discussed in a controlled and peaceful manner such that all that have a viewpoint or petition can speak and be listened to without fear of retribution from those that hold power or oversight.

This fundamental requirement was weakened in 1911 as the power centres moved from aristocracy to the people, the principal loss being oversight by the HoL on Treasury spending or legislation concerning money matters and the ability to block it. In the fullness of time this oversight has moved from the controlled environment of Parliament to the mob represented by a sophisticated investigative worldwide media.

If the HoL is to remove itself entirely from any dependence on the public purse as was the case under the aristocracy it must be able to protect its privacy and that of its members from aggressive public scrutiny, any such disclosure being given entirely at the discretion of the HoL itself. The best medium at the moment for creating such a holding company is ‘The Partnership (Accounts) Regulations 2008’.

I say this because practice has proven that it can successfully resist the best efforts of investigative journalism as demonstrated by the financial support team of former Prime Minister Tony Blair and a competition to reveal its structure by the Guardian newspaper.

Ref: Mystery of Tony Blair’s Money Solved
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/dec/17/mystery-tony-blairs-money-solved

As to patronage or cronyism, I assume you mean political peers arriving in the house from the Commons. Any given Prime Minister would still be able to submit candidates to the house’s PPC process but after that they would have to be approved by their constituency (made up of rank and file members of their party). Indeed the constituency itself could submit candidates allowing party dissenters to join the house.

The main problem for Lord Tyler’s lobby is that even if the principle of relevant democracy is accepted, just how do you make hundreds of independently minded monoliths move in the same direction short of stacking them up like dominoes?

The carrot might be some independent control over their taxation affairs, privacy concerning expenses and a strengthened independence.

The constituencies could form UK registered incorporated companies that are satellite to a UK parent holding company. The satellite companies would receive their income from their constituencies who would fund their peers and who would also be non exec directors. The exec directors would be constituency members only. Expenses would be borne by these companies or perhaps the holding company and peers would no longer receive recompense from the public purse. For working peers they would need a P46 to receive income from their companies as a second job.

They would have to justify their expenses not to the public but to their constituencies and they would be subject to audit by the accountancy profession and subsequent approval by the tax authorities. Their details would remain private except those parts available in submitted year end accounts or legally required by Companies House.

The role of the holding company would be to fund all peers and their necessary bureaucracy again taking nothing from the public purse. The limit of what is possible is down to their collective imagination and available funding from their constituencies.

You must forgive me but I have only a very superficial understanding of such matters financially. None of this may be possible or even practical. It does show however that achieving democracy in the house will not be easy but in the end well worth it?

All Lords who acquired membership by patronage should go too.

Now who does that leave?

Lord Tyler is right in proposing an elected house but then again so is Lord Norton when he says the house should remain unelected. What Lord Norton should remind himself of is that when Plato’s students left him they chose not to install democracies but installed autocracies because it was the easy way out.

I think Professor Gélard has produced in his report a very balanced critique of second houses. What the HoL enbloc must do now is debate the issues of constituency.

Its simply not acceptable for the government to create peerages with an automatic writ of summons. The writ was created in the first place to stop the monarchy from doing the very same thing. Only the establishment of constituency and limits on membership is going to stop government from abusing the HoL as it is doing now.

Lets get some real debate going and, no, peers cannot be guaranteed a job for life; those jobs must be given to the best of the bunch otherwise what’s the point of it all we might as well do what other second houses do and base constituency on land and population and compete with the Commons.

A gerrymanderer’s charter?

It seems the world has forgotten that second houses quintessentially serve to protect their people from those that govern and rule. This is the natural source of their authority and by which they serve. The HoL is partly elected with the rest being unelected. The unelected part represents an eclectic membership drawn from a wide cross section of society to process legislation in a timely way. It minimises bureaucracy and cost by employing expertise directly with no state remuneration except legitimate expenses.

The link below ‘Composition and Membership of Second Houses in Europe’ shows that they are principally elected on the basis of population or land ownership. What’s also shown are the limits of their membership? No mention is made of how these houses are financed or how they maintain their independence.

To change the unelected part of the HoL the democratic process should be relevant to the need. It should establish relevant constituencies and those constituencies should finance membership. Parliament should set boundaries to that membership to allow the Monarchy to deny a ‘Writ of Summons’ presented by either house but allow honorary peerages to take place.

So how is this to be established?

The Irish ‘Seanad Eireann’ gives a clue in that three are elected by the graduates of the National University of Ireland and three are elected by the University Dublin Trinity College. See link.

This sets the general principle of relevant democracy and for academics a collegiate of universities would be their constituency. For political peers like yourself, constituency would come from your party’s rank and file membership. I think you get the drift of where this is coming from? The constituencies should not be static but dynamic to best serve needs as time goes by.

Now to the need for relevant democracy in terms of the popular vote;

Turnout in general elections will never reach 100% but events may conspire to erode participation thus lowering turnout. There must come a point where a low turnout questions the legitimacy of an elected government in that the majority do not wish to participate in its prospectus.

However, whilst they abandon the Commons they are not abandoned by the HoL or the Monarchy and this should be the authority that switches the balance of power from the Commons to the HoL. The value of this switch would be set at 49% turnout. Anything above this would give the Commons authority to overrule the HoL whilst anything under would give authority to the HoL to overrule the Commons.

Ref: Report on Second Chambers in Europe, P. Gélard (France)
Council of Europe, CDL(2006)059rev, Study No. 335/2005
http://www.venice.coe.int/docs/2006/CDL%282006%29059rev-e.pdf

Gareth although this has been discussed and personally I withdrew so it would not be tedious, there remains a discrepancy. Even Direct.gov.uk places the HoL under Central Government in the A-Z.

To Govern in dictionary terms means : To exercise a deciding or determining influence on.

Now this is how most people view Government at it`s dictionary meaning. Now I have come to realise that there is a certain amount of seperatism between, Executive, Legislature and Judiciary but and this is a very big but from where I stand, the legislature hold the power. They hold that power in so much as they decide yay or nay to a bill put forward by the executive.

I know my Noble Lord Norton will again counter the argument, at least in mind so this doesn`t get tedious.

The power and ability to stop or allow a bill will alway`s be seen as a way of government, as it is in business. I know we have a complex system in the “Westminister Parliamentary Government” as it is known but I think to allow us peasants our view on what controls us is beyond those in parliament. Now to the peasants there are various forms, when spoken, of Government. It can refer directly to the party who got the most seats or alternately to anyone in the “House” with office or any aspect of Administration concerning the Government in general.

A twitcher would say a Lesser Spotted Warbler, I say it`s a bird.

The peasants will alway`s see the people with the power, and that is the legislature although they do not propose the bills, as the Government. Although they fully understand only the Cabinet (and supporting cast) is “THE Government”.

I suppose it`s a bit like looking at a Court Room, the Jury is the legislature, the prosecution the Executive and the Judge of course the Judiciary. You can seperate it all up like that but it`s a Court, each seperate part holds sway over the defendant.

That`s probably a very bad analogy and no doubt Baroness Deech will be seething, my apologies.

Oh that Maximilien Robespierre were here to help me out on this.