True.

But I have my concerns, as I mentioned on my daily blog, http://paulburgin.blogspot.com:

Having read about this I have the following doubts:

1. Quotas. I am wary of quotas as I feel that they are cosmetic and don't properly deal with the problems that cause them!

2. The half elected, half appointed issue. Better than before, but is this planned as a halfway house? And what about the Bishops bench (which reminds me, expect a blog entry soon on Church/State relations).

3. How will this effect the status of the Lords?

Anyways, I am open to persuasion here, although I still prefer the Bragg proposals on this issue.

Why does the government seem to be obsessed with the sh*t idea that there should be appointed members? Why bother electing them with PR if you are just going to appoint half of them anyway?

What they should do is gradually phase out the existing members until eventually the chamber is fully elected. And what is this about 12 years? Rubbish!! That's not proportional at all. A lot happens in 12 years. Elect them every 4-5 years like the House of Commons for god's sake.

What's the point in having half and half? Either you have an appointed chamber or a 100% elected chamber.

If you go for an elected chamber, it also provides you with the opportunity to disestablish the Church of England. The two issues are intertwinned through the fact that CofE bishops sit in the the House of Lords.
This may be of particular relevance to a Scottish Prime Minister, who ultimately has the power to appoint the Archbishop of Canterbury. Will he want to do this? Why can't the Queen and the Church of England Synod decide this amongst themselves?

Whether we are a Christian country or not, either way we don't require  an established Church. Indeed an independent CofE may be more effective!

An elected House of Lords should not be allowed to enact primary legislation, so as to keep the supremacy of the Commons. The second chamber would remain a revising body and counterbalance to the Commons.

But the allegations of cronyism and corruption on both sides has made the current appointed chamber almost impossible and so an elected chamber is almost the only remaining possibility.

If ministers are prepared to admit that appointed members to the upper house of Parliament are not a good thing, then they should have the courage to get rid of all of them rather than a half-hearted attempt to compromise. None of them deserves their place in our nation's legislature as long as they are not elected fairly and directly by the British people.

My proposal would go along the lines of having 90 Senators and they would represent regions rather than constituencies. Each region (Wales, Scot, NI and the 9 English regions) would each elect a number of Senators purely by proportional representation (in a similar fashion to the Euro Parl elections). Length of term would be four years with elections always taking place half way through the term of the Lower House (which would also have four year terms).

The key to success with Upper House reforms is to ensure that all members are directly elected, but to also ensure that the Upper House is very different from the Lower House so as not to create two identical chambers. I would make Senators less powerful than MP's but still allow them to fully block legislation. I would also argue that no govt. ministers or whips should be in the Upper House so as to make it slightly more neutral than the Lower House.

Life peers 'to escape Lords axe'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6159337.stm