By Phillip Norton, Conservative life peer and professor of government at Hull University.

If one is to have a second chamber, that chamber has to add value to the political system.

The House of Lords has served as a valuable second chamber, fulfilling - and generally fulfilling well - a number of functions that cannot be or are not fulfilled by the first chamber.

It is a complementary chamber: by not challenging the democratic legitimacy of the elected House, it helps maintain the democratic accountability of the existing system. One body - the party in government - is responsible for measures of public policy, and if the electorate does not like that policy it can turn the government out at the next election.

Change and accountability

If there is to be change to existing arrangements it must be change that does not challenge this fundamental democratic accountability, and it should either strengthen the attributes of the existing second chamber or introduce a new chamber that adds even more value to the process than the existing one.

A wholly or predominantly elected second chamber would detract, rather than add, value. Contrary to superficial perceptions, an elected second chamber is not the "democratic" option, but rather the reverse.

An elected chamber would claim the political legitimacy to have powers on a par with, or not much less than, those of the first chamber. The potential for clashes between the two undermines the capacity of the political process to translate popular wishes into legislative outcomes.

If gridlock prevents policies wanted by the electorate from being translated into law, who do the electors punish?

'A powerful document'

The Wakeham report is a powerful document because it recognises the dangers of having an elected second chamber.

It offers an excellent exposition of the place of a second chamber in the political system. It recognises the strengths of the existing chamber and identifies ways in which the second chamber can be further strengthened.

It provides, in my view, a masterly discussion of the appropriate functions and powers of the second chamber and identifies a number of ways in which its functions can be fulfilled through new structures and additional resources.

It makes 132 detailed recommendations. I support, and support enthusiastically, virtually all of these 132 recommendations.

The creation of a statutory Appointments Commission, independent of prime ministerial patronage, with responsibility for actively identifying able people from all sections of society - ensuring a House comprising a much broader spread of membership than at present - is to be applauded.

The report makes a compelling case for what it recommends. That, coupled with recommendations to extend the capacity of the House to scrutinise primary and secondary legislation, to call the government to account, to protect the constitution, and to scrutinise European legislation and international treaties, will make for a second chamber that adds even more value to the political system than the present House.

Some of the changes that Wakeham proposes are not radical but, in combination, they make for a substantial package of reforms that will transform the present House.

'Cosmetic elections'

Where I quibble with the commission's report is in its proposals for a number of elected members. It feels the need to inject an element of election in order to provide some element of "democratic" legitimacy.

The proposal is, in many respects, cosmetic, pandering to the misguided but popular perception that democracy has to be defined in terms solely of process (election) rather than process geared to outcome (ensuring outputs that represent the popular will).

The members of the commission are unable to agree what form the election should take. It is not clear why members of the second chamber elected at the same as members of the European Parliament will, given the turnout in Euro-elections, enjoy notable popular legitimacy.

The fact that it is a largely cosmetic exercise is borne out by the fact that, in trying to claim that all members of the new House will be equal, the report says that, in effect, the number of elected members is so small that they will not make much difference to outcomes.

That quibble aside - and it is an important quibble - I welcome the report as an excellent exposition of the role, powers and functions of the second chamber and (elections apart) and as the basis for ensuring a transition to a second chamber that will be better than any of the alternatives on offer.