The House of Lords is a profoundly undemocratic institution, one whose powers were thankfully reigned in by the Parliament Act of 1911. But still, it exists, even though it could be abolished pretty easily just by having the PM ask the Monarch to pack it with people who would vote for its abolition. So when would the time have been best to give Britain a unicameral parliament?
As you say 1911 was a key date in defining i.e. limiting the powers of the Lords.
and I suspect it was that crisis that leads you to suggest that creating extra peers is needed to further the process.
In that case the PM of one political party used the
threat of asking the King to create extra peers to force the existing peers, mostly of the other political persuasion, to comply.
(Obviously the new peers would remain and change the balance of the Lords for many years
so the old peers had to choose the lesser of two evils)
However that is no longer needed.
The Lords are currently tasked only with suggesting modification of legislation that was created and passed initial scrutiny in the first chamber i.e the Commons
So any changes to their composition would need to pass the Commons first.
And if the Lords CANNOT initiate legislation, nor can it formally end legislation ... merely repeatedly delay by sending back to the Commons with suggested changes.
and for different types of bill the amount of delay is specifically limited
So if sufficiently supported in the Commons, the Lords have to little power to oppose any change in their status.
As illustrated by Tony Blairs successful measure to eliminate the Hereditary Peers and replace them with Government jobsworth appointees
(thereby increasing the power of the Government and reducing democracy)
IMHO it is the
composition of the Lords not their role that is undemocratic not their role.
in fact I believe that the current division of powers is probably the best between a first and second chamber anywhere in the world.
What is needed are mostly simple measures:
1. To make all the Lords (or whatever they would then be called) elected
2. Do this via a suitable form of proportional representation that minimizes constituency dependence
(and encourages acting in the
national interest)
3. To provide a fixed term of office different to the commons ... almost certainly longer (?9 Years vs 5)
4. rolling partial elections of the 2nd Chamber (1/3 every 3 years ... after the initial startup)
5. Term limits (2 or 3 ) on membership to prevent "career politicians"
Unfortunately the necessary last step is less easy to describe:
6. To institute "self denying" rules
Put simply they are situations where if you have every taken or even applied for certain other roles you cannot apply for others
(as was the case historically and remains in place for some trivial situations)
Most obviously any candidate for the First Chamber ... even an unsuccessful one .. cannot apply for the Second (and vice versa) ... EVER
Similar rules should apply to judges, senior Civil Servants, Senior army officers and executive members of political organisations
(though in some cases these might be time limited not for life)