TRANSFORMING THE HOUSE OF LORDS

The Royal (Wakeham) Commission Report on the House of Lords proposes far-reaching changes that will produce a more democratically responsive and useful "New Second Chamber" replacing the House of Lords. However, the Wakeham Report does not go far enough. In this paper we recommend a comprehensive reform package that would make Members of the Second Chamber responsive to the un(der)represented communities they serve, and more proactive in support of a coherently integrated and culturally diverse British population. Un(der)represented communities are those without direct representation in the House of Commons, including both geographically defined regions and widely dispersed minority communities. We argue that the term, nation, is often used ambiguously and therefore suggest the substitution by ethnic community in certain contexts. Some additional proposals, such as making use of modern technology, especially the INTERNET, will greatly enhance the effectiveness of the proposed new body, the "NSC".

In the context of national, regional, ethnic and global changes now affecting Great Britain, there is widespread appreciation of the need for constitutional reform. Such reforms already extend to the British constitution, mainly via devolution and, indeed, reform of the House of Lords (HOL) which has already begun as an aspect of this broader process. Recent communal violence involving long established ethnic communities residing in Great Britain and holding full citizenship has illustrated the need for an urgent solution of the problem of un(der)represented communities. ⁽¹⁾ Britain now stands at a historic crossroads which will determine whether it will suffer the ill effects of further segregation and conflict generated by inter-communal tensions and misunderstandings on the one hand or progress towards a more fully democratic multi-cultural civilization on the other. We obviously favour the later as both aspiration and practical solution. It is in this context and its pressing political concerns that we introduce the following proposals for the reform of the House of Lords.

The Report ⁽²⁾ on the Reform of the House of Lords (January 2000) by the Royal Commission talks about an expanded role for a " New Second Chamber" (NSC) and discusses how a new Appointments Commission (AC) would secure nominations and make appointments without requiring Government approval. Fundamentally reforming the House of Lords (HOL) is a process that has already been launched. The Membership of many Hereditary Lords has been terminated and the report of the Wakeham Commission ⁽³⁾ points the way to a radically different New Second Chamber (For details about the existing HOL and its own plans go to its Home Page ⁽⁴⁾ New Members will be appointed solely on the basis of their personal achievements, and efforts will be made to co-opt individuals who represent important communities -- both geographic and ethnic -- that are not represented in the Lower House. (For an analysis of the current composition of the HOL, see: Members. ⁽⁵⁾ The Wakeham Commission Report in part anticipates some of the proposals we recommend here with the notable exception that it would have the Appointments Commission (AC) co-opt representative individuals without first establishing a process whereby those to be represented could, in fact, nominate persons whom they would trust to speak for them.

The Wakeham Report also refers to ethnicity (see pp. 6, 12, 14) and Recommendation 92 (p. 25) calls for appointments to be made from under-represented groups. More specifically, it seeks fair representation for minority ethnic groups and supports efforts to achieve gender balance (see Para. 13.29). The Report also calls for opening up the nominations process to the widest possible range of candidates (Rec. 96), enjoins the AC to adopt a proactive approach (Rec. 97) and stresses the need for better representation of "nations and regions in the UK".

However, it fails to clearly explicate the procedures required to obtain nominations or to secure the election of members. It appears that under the present plan the AC will have the authority to co-opt individuals to "represent" communities without any formal or transparent procedure to ensure that these communities will actually trust them to represent their interests Significantly, the AC ... welcomes nominations from people who will broaden the expertise and experience of the House as well as reflect greater representation of the diversity of the people of the United Kingdom. (the full text can be found at the AC Home Page ⁽⁶⁾ However, no guidance is provided concerning the critical political question of how to assure that those to be represented will have a real voice in making these appointments. Therefore, concrete proposals for an alternative process of nomination are spelled out in this paper.

The institutionalisation process involves revisions in the representative organs of governance as already manifest in the devolution to national or regional Assemblies in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and, in the future, possibly other regions within England such as the Northeast or Southwest. It would be very helpful to have a new map that identifies these political regions. The movement towards elected city mayors, beginning with London, provides further evidence of this process. The trend towards devolution may be seen as a correction of the over-centralisation of British government since the Thatcher administration. However, it is also a necessary adjustment of British political culture to that of the European Union, to the principle of subsidiarity, and a "Europe of the regions" leading to a new political architecture more commensurate with that on the continent. In our view the pressures of globalisation upon the economy and culture of Great Britain move matters inexorably towards a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural society. We accept this historical change as being both inevitable and desirable. In order to accommodate this underlying social transformation, the House of Commons (HOC) is gradually becoming more representative of a broader range of social forces, including women and national minorities, but much more progress is needed.

The reformed HOL (NSC) can, we believe, expand its functions and role by increasing and deepening its representativeness of British political culture while bringing to an end the antiquated practices and vestiges of its past. This process has already been started by terminating the tenure of Hereditary Lords. Consider that the House of Lords Bill, which was passed by the HOC and introduced in the HOL on 17 March 1999, stipulates that: No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage. (For details see the Bill ⁽⁷⁾) As of 15 January 2001, 92 hereditary lords were Members of the House, but all had been selected: 75 by political parties, 15 office holders, and 2 as royal appointees. In addition, the chamber had 26 bishops and 570 appointed life peers. (For details see analysis ⁽⁸⁾) Nevertheless, the Government's effort to replace these Lords has drawn sharp criticism from the loyal opposition.  According to the Manchester Guardian, 25 February 2000, as reported by David Walker in Crowded House, "The Tories have latched on to the unprecedented number of peers created by the Blair government." Perhaps the Tories and other opposition parties would have less reason to complain if new Lords were non-partisan and represented regions and un(der)represented communities. As of 20 January 2001, however, among the 570 Life Peers, 195 were chosen by the Labour Party, 179 by the Conservative Party, 57 Liberals and 132 Cross-Bench Members. (For details return to: analysis ⁽⁹⁾)

The time now seems ripe to address the growing need for a special body that represents all the regional and ethnic communities of the British Isles on a non-partisan basis. The House of Commons has traditionally been constituted as a nationally representative body with constituencies determined by territory and population in geographically delimited electoral districts, based on party nominations. By contrast, the new HOL (NSC) can complement this pattern by representing dispersed ethnic and regional communities, giving them a direct voice in government. Unfortunately, as already noted, the procedures adopted by the newly established Appointments Commission ⁽¹⁰⁾ will scarcely achieve this result. Its rules merely call for anyone interested in becoming a Member to submit nomination forms. The first round of 3124 applications, received by the deadline of 17 November 2000, consisted mainly of white persons (85%), males (81%), largely from London and the South East (53%). These figures are taken from a report in The Times 12 December 2000, which asserted that, Despite pleas for applications from ethnic minorities, only 15%, or 468, described themselves as non white (p.16).

Clearly, a more systematic way to secure nominations that reflect the views and interests of minority communities is urgently needed, as recent events have dramatically illustrated. The recommendations of the Royal Commission seem to anticipate at least some aspects of our proposals. (See the Executive Summary of the Wakeham Commission report ⁽¹¹⁾ ) Section #35 of the Wakeham Report calls for proportionate representation for members of minority ethnic groups and invites nominations from the widest possible range of sources.

The basic thrust of the Wakeham report has been reinforced by the subsequent publication of the closely related Commission on the Future of MultiEthnic Britain, ⁽¹²⁾ chaired by Baron Bhikhu Parekh. His preface to this report starts with the following paragraph:

The Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain was set up in January 1998 by the Runnymede Trust, an independent think-tank devoted to the cause of promoting racial justice in Britain. The Commission's remit was to analyse the current state of multi-ethnic Britain and propose ways of countering racial discrimination and disadvantage and making Britain a confident and vibrant multi-cultural society at ease with its rich diversity. It was made up of 23 distinguished individuals drawn from many community backgrounds and different walks of life, and with a long record of active academic and practical engagement with race-related issues in Britain and elsewhere. They brought to their task different views and sensibilities and, after a good deal of discussion, reached a consensus. The report is the product of their two years of deliberation.

After specifying several fundamental principles that ought to govern British ethical and political life the report stipulates that: The policies we propose address each of these. They require not only appropriate legislative, administrative and other measures, but also a radical shift in the manner in which British identity and the relations between different groups of citizens are generally defined (The complete text can be found at: Preface. ⁽¹³⁾

What the Recommendations offered in the Parekh report seem to lack, however, is any clear idea about how political weight can be created that would be able to enforce or, at least, to support effectively the very worthy goals endorsed by the Commission. To substantiate this claim, consider that, apart from recommending that Government create two new Commissions for Equality and for Human Rights, no basic political machinery is recommended to give teeth to these proposals. The nearest it comes to this basic point can be found in a chapter on Politics and Representation which contains the following paragraph:

The Appointments Commission should have a statutory duty to ensure that the second chamber is more representative of the country in terms of ethnicity. In any one year, during at least the next 5-10 years, at least 15 per cent of new members should be from Asian and black community backgrounds (This text can be found at: Runnymede Report. ⁽¹⁴⁾

Unfortunately, there are no specific suggestions about how this goal can be accomplished. Yet, without arrangements for the communities to be represented to nominate candidates, the implicit assumption seems to be that the Appointments Commission should select individuals who, in their wisdom, would be able to represent communities simply because they are "from Asian and black community backgrounds." Experience in many countries shows that when such persons are co-opted by those in power, the communities they are supposed to represent may just reject them as collaborators unworthy of support. We offer a set of recommendations designed to solve this problem.

However, there are secondary issues based on conceptual problems that are not only intrinsically important, but they affect questions about who would be represented in the NSC. The Parekh Commission explains its position in a section on Terminology ⁽¹⁵⁾ that presents serious difficulties. Consider, for example, this quotation: The term 'race' is of essential importance, since it alludes to racism. It is unhelpful, however, to the extent that it reflects and perpetuates the belief that the human species actually consists of separate races, differentiated by skin colour and other physical markers. A further disadvantage is that overuse can deflect attention from cultural and religious aspects of racism as distinct from those which are concerned with physical appearance. It needs, therefore, to be either eliminated or at least complemented with other terms.

In fact, the term race often appears in the Parekh report. Paradoxically, its use reflects continuing stereotypes that contribute to the racist prejudices that the Commission opposes so strongly. Consider the phrase 'Asian and black' that often appears in the report. Although Asian is not explicitly racial, it usually suggests people who are brown or yellow but not white even though many people from Asia, as a vast continent, are indeed white. Black is even more overtly a racial epithet applied equally to many light skinned people of mixed descent.

There are many un(der)represented communities in Britain who are neither "Asian" nor "black." Sometimes the phrase is extended to read, "Asian, black and Irish." It is not clear whether the term "Irish" includes those living in Northern Ireland, or only Irish people living in Great Britain. More importantly, many Muslim, Arab, East European, Hispanic, and even Mediterranean groups living in the U.K. are under-represented politically yet they would not be classed as Asian, black, or Irish.

To ovecome the semantic traps into which such racially loaded terms lead us, we propose replacing them with neutral geographic expressions e.g. African and Caribbean, for example, which can identify communities without reference to skin color. Instead of Asian we would use more specific words like Indians, Chinese, Iranians, or Egyptians, etc. The essential generic concept is that of communities that lack representation in the political system, and hence are vulnerable to discrimination based on prejudice without having an effective voice in the power structure. Again, we prefer to think about un(der)represented communities who, for whatever reason, are members of British society but lack an effective voice in its political system.

A different kind of problem involves the use of 'Britain' as it occurs in the Parekh report, and in its preface, as cited above. Like race it also concerns the identification of un(der)represented communities. However, this name relates to the representation of British people living outside the main island, by contrast with issues concerning un(der)represented groups living in the U.K. The Terminology note explains that Britain is used to refer to Great Britain, i.e. to England, Scotland and Wales. Is this usage not potentially confusing? Britain clearly referred just to England and Wales until 1707 when formal union with Scotland was effected and Great Britain was adopted as the name for the larger island entity. Will Scots easily accept the shortened form when used to include them as just a region?

However, an even greater problem involves the definition of Britain in a way that excludes many people who think of themselves as British. The most obvious example involves the Unionists who, in spite of the creation of the new Government of Northern Ireland, clearly see themselves as part of the United Kingdom. Their draft programme for self-government included Joint Ministerial Committees to enable them to contribute to UK national policy; they surely do not see devolution as a complete severance of links with "Britain." (For details go to: draft programme. ⁽¹⁶⁾)

This example raises a much broader issue involving the identity of British people living outside the UK. Many of them carry British passports but they may feel themselves to be woefully un(der)represented in British governance. Closer to home, this includes the citizens of the Crown Dependencies (i.e., the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man) plus residents of a congeries of remaining colonies, such as the Falklands, the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and Gibraltar. Above all, it includes British people living abroad around the world in many countries. Should they not have the same right to vote by absentee ballots that expatriates possess in the United States and some other countries. In the French Senate, for example, there are 11 members representing overseas departments, and 12 are named by the Higher Council of French Abroad to represent French nationals overseas.

If we accept the notion that the British polity in a broad sense needs to be responsible both to currently un(der)represented communities within the U.K. (Including "racial" and "ethnic" minorities) , and also to British expatriates living in many countries around the world -- and especially in the Crown Dependencies and colonies -- then we surely need a better name for the national or geographic entity that includes all these citizens, all those who see themselves as British people. Britain is surely an inadequate name for this purpose. However, we cannot find any established name that clearly represents the intended entity.

In the past, following major changes, new names were invented, including both Great Britain and United Kingdom. It should surely not be beyond our imagination to create another name for the new British national entity that has emerged in the context of globalization. One possibility would be to coin a phrase like 'British Land' or better: Britland. Great Britain was added to our nomenclature in 1707 following the formal union with Scotland. Was Britain ever used by itself to name the English/Welsh regime? We find only that Breton was the name used by a Celtic-speaking tribe in pre-Roman times and, under the Romans, two provinces known as southern and northern Britain were established.

In addition to England itself, the suffix, land, is used in Scotland, Ireland, Shetland, Falkland, New Zealand, Iceland, Greenland, Newfoundland, Queensland, Finland, Holland, Netherlands, Somaliland, Nyasaland, Bechuanaland, Togoland, and even Puntland. ⁽¹⁷⁾ the latest addition to our vocabulary. No doubt opponents of neologisms will reject Britland and we can surely find other names for the same concept. In the Annex #1 we use British People, but this term refers to a demographic aggregate rather than a politically self-constituting community. Another possibility would be to revive the ancient Roman name for the province, Brittania, to refer to all British people wherever they may be living. The point, of course, is that the truly important geographic context for the Parekh Commission's report is not just Great Britain but the larger political entity -- Britland -- or Britannia -- that embraces all the British people of the world, including ethnic minorities residing within the UK and also British diasporans living in many other countries.

New Powers and Functions of the NSC: Concerning the powers to be given to the new or reformed second chamber, we also applaud its recommendations which endorse the tradition of a primarily consultative upper house with limited direct legislative powers that leave the HOC with the primary legislative role in the constitution. The NSC should remain a special forum for 'non-party' political debate and seek to preserve this political culture. We likewise concur with the recommendations concerning the retention by the second chamber of the "'suspensor veto" set out in the Parliament Acts, whereby the upper house may delay but not ultimately prevent a legislative bill passed by the HOC and approved by two successive sessions of Parliament. However, we think that certain areas of legislation, such as law pertaining to mutual relations between regional and ethnic communities should be an exception. The 'Salisbury Convention' norms should be honoured, whereby the NSC respects the governing party's general election manifesto and does not attempt to act as a forum of opposition to the government of the day, although it may certainly challenge positions taken by the government or the HOC on particular issues or proposed legislation.

Since we seek to enhance the role of the reformed second chamber we advocate a broadening and strengthening of its consultative role in the legislative process. Introducing new committees or strengthening existing ones could facilitate this process. Among the committees we suggest would be: the Constitutional Committee, the Committee on Laws and Powers, European Union Committee, Commonwealth Committee, the Regions and Localities Committee, the Minorities and Equality Committee (MEC), and the Human Rights Committee (HRC). Members of the NSC appointed to represent un(der)represented minorities could be recognized collectively as a Panel on Human Rights to be consulted by these committees, especially MEC and HRC, whenever issues arise that affect the communities they represent. Furthermore, some Members of this panel ought to be invited to serve on the HRC and MEC directly.

These committees relate immediately to new functions of the NSC proposed in this paper. They can enhance the legislative process through increased scrutiny of and consultation with the HOC.  The prestige of the leading members of the NSC Committees and their experience could make a valuable contribution to the legislative process and contribute to an environment in which regular and meaningful consultation between hitherto un(der)represented communities, the NSC and the HOC is more deeply institutionalized.

We think of the expanded (and reformed) functions of the NSC as both broader and narrower than those now exercised by the House of Lords. A revised set of guidelines for its functions would include the following functions:

· Reviewing bills approved in the HOC. This function would continue as at present but with a reduction in scale. For example, the NSC might agree to review measures only when asked to do so by the HOC which might also agree to seek an opinion from the NSC whenever the margin of victory in a vote fell below a specified level, or whenever the competing parties in the House agreed that they would welcome such an opinion. The goal of this change would be to reduce the workload involved in considering bills passed by the HOC, and to make better use of the auxiliary legislative role of the NSC.

· Legislating in specified domains. As the NSC acquires Members representing diverse ethnic communities in the UK and the adjacent islands, it could take the primary responsibility for legislation affecting their problems with the goal of reducing tensions and finding acceptable solutions. The traditional relations between the chambers could be reversed, giving the HOC the right to delay but not block the implementation of NSC decisions involving ethnic relations, the Crown Dependencies, Britons in diaspora, or any other domain where the HOC lacks true jurisdiction because it does not directly represent these communities.

As we visualize this process, controversies involving constituents of regional, ethnic or minority communities not directly represented as such in the HOC should be placed on the agenda of the NSC for official action. The NSC could first appoint a Special Committee to look into the matter and offer recommendations to be reviewed by the whole chamber. Members nominated by affected communities should be included in any such committees, but the chair ought to be a third party. Decisions made by the NSC in such matters should be final, subject to conditional review by the HOC which, however, could only delay, not block, its decisions. The essential logic of this rule rests on the fact that because un(der)represented communities or minorities have no direct voice in the House of Commons, that body should not have exclusive or ultimate jurisdiction in controversies involving these communities. Instead, the NSC  would take jurisdiction over matters involving relations between communities that will be represented in this body by members nominated (but not necessarily directly elected) by minority or ethnic community associations, in consultation with the AC. The HOC would continue to take jurisdiction over matters involving communities that are adequately represented in its membership, and in cases where both chambers are clearly involved, a joint committee or process could be established.

q Judicial Functions. The House of Lords now contains Law Lords who carry out judicial functions through committees on which they are the members. These functions would not be changed, but the existing Law Lords should invite Members representing un(der)represented regions and communities to join them in any proceedings that involve such communities or issues, particularly where human rights are involved.

q Proactive projects promoting inter-communal harmony. Recognizing the important contributions that diverse ethnic communities, the adjacent islands and Britons in Diaspora can make to the cultural life of all the peoples living in the British Isles, the NSC should launch proactive programs designed to support and facilitate their interests, especially by encouraging communication and cooperation between different groups, thus enhancing education about and mutual understanding of cultural or other 'difference'. The general spirit of the project must be one of toleration, communication, and understanding of one another. This outreach function is essentially non-legislative and involves activities that resemble those legislators normally carry out for their constituents. Such projects will enhance the role of members of the NSC. This is a two-way process: representatives not only speak for the communities they represent when making laws, but they also reach out to help them directly and, also, indirectly by soliciting help from other government agencies. Effective accomplishment of these goals will require new funding and procedures (outlined in section VII below). In addition to mutual cultural education, we strongly advocate the introduction of Peace Studies curricula in local schools and via community and religious associations or organisations. Such a programme should enhance the emergence of peaceful inter-community relations on a long term sustainable basis.

Recapitulation: BASIC GOALS IN OUTLINE:

1. Expand the principle of representation in the NSC both horizontally and vertically:

· Horizontally, expand the scope of the reform by including the Crown Dependencies and British nationals in diaspora around the world;

· Vertically, permit un(der)represented communities to nominate candidates for consideration by the Appointments Commission (AC), and do not co-opt individuals to represent communities -- everyone named to represent a dispersed community should be nominated by it. Regions, by contrast, should/could directly elect members of the NSC, as already recommended in the Wakeham Report.

8. Explicitly Address inter-community relations

· Within the British Isles

· Between Britons and peoples of the European Union

· Among diverse peoples of the Commonwealth

· Between Britons in diaspora and the peoples of the British Isles

8. We propose a revised agenda for the second chamber to include:

· Review questions proposed for consideration by the HOC or the Government

· Make decisions or initiate legislation about issues involving relations between ethnic, national and regional communities, subject to review and delay by the HOC, but not veto

· Promote positive (integrative) activities by their constituents and take the lead in developing ethnic and minority associations capable of cultivating a constructive inter-community relationship. Where such associations do not yet exist, the incentive of nominating someone to Membership of the NSC could well provide a needed catalyst.

8. We amplify the Royal Commission''s Report on the following points:

· Un(der)represented Communities: give them a voice

· Geographically defined Regions: they may elect NSC Members

· Non-Geographic Communities: they may nominate NSC candidates

· Nations: a problematic category that can be substituted by ethnic community

· Representation outside the UK: include Crown Dependencies and Diaspora

· Supporting Actions: utilize the INTERNET and interns creatively

(The annexes provide supplementary information and suggestions designed to amplify and substantiate the recommendations set forth in this paper.)

II. UN(DER)REPRESENTED COMMUNITIES

Recommendation #92 of the Wakeham Report asks the Appointments Commission to encourage appointments and nominations from under-represented groups and to promote gender balance and a fair representation for minority ethnic groups. We seek to elaborate the notion of un(der)represented groups by suggesting that these are understood as regions and communities not presently able to secure direct representation as such at the electoral level, but who are able to organize regionally or nationally in order to elect or nominate persons to represent them (in the NSC in this instance). Because such communities often have no direct political representation at all, we will write un(der)represented to suggest that these groups may not be well represented or have no representation at all.

We suggest that the distinction made in the Wakeham Report between appointments and nominations needs further clarification: the former applies to all decisions by the AC, and the latter to petitions by un(der)represented communities. Moreover, the distinction between regions and ethnic communities is substantive and we discuss it below. Here, however, we emphasize that:

· Geographically-defined regions should be identified by the AC and authorized to (directly) elect candidates who would be seated as Members of the NSC. 

· Ethnic communities, because they are dispersed geographically, cannot easily be empowered to directly elect representatives. However, they should be authorized to nominate candidates who would, if acceptable, be appointed by the AC to Membership in the NSC.

In the following sections, we will discuss the distinction between geographically defined regions and non-geographically defined communities. Most importantly, the role of the AC would differ in relation to them:

· The AC should identify and authorize geographical regions, granting them the right to elect Members of the NSC;

· Un(der)represented communities should establish their own associations and nominate candidates for Membership of the NSC, but the AC may accept or reject these nominations in consultation with the communities and associations concerned, giving reasons for any rejections.

Community Nominating Structures

To say that a community may nominate candidates raises a host of relevant questions about how this can be done. By authorizing the AC to recognize and appoint nominees to Membership of the NSC, a mechanism will exist to enable the AC to set forth some standards and procedures to guide members of any community seeking to nominate candidates. Without prejudging what these rules should be, a few suggestions may be offered here.

The first rules should specify the kinds of communities that would be recognized. In general we think they should not be based on special interests, professions, or any occupational categories. Instead, they are ascriptive communities, most often based on countries of origin, the main marker for ethnic communities. Priority should be given to ethnic communities whose members can most easily be identified and mobilized, relying on the organization of Ethnic Community Associations (See Annex #2, Activating Ethnic Assemblies). Each ECA should ultimately identify itself and establish a process capable of nominating widely acceptable candidates for appointment to the NSC. The Appointments Commission (AC) should be able to establish both substantive and procedural criteria, and have the authority to recognize associations that meet the specified requirements.

Because this process involves few benefits or costs, self-identification ought to be an adequate test. However, members of an ECA could possibly be asked to pay nominal dues to cover some of the costs of representation, and the organisation should gain in community status by having a representative in the NSC. A simple electoral process might involve listing candidates willing to serve and have members of ECAs vote (in person, by mail, phone and/or email) for persons they trust. Those receiving the largest number of votes would be asked to address the council. It would then meet to consider and endorse nominees for appointment as a Member of the NSC.

The council might create a small nominating committee, perhaps funded and mentored by the AC, to assure the efficient and responsible performance of the basic procedures needed to identify well-qualified nominees. Any association member would be entitled to be considered, or could nominate another member for this purpose. Candidates should provide evidence of their achievements and identify some sponsors. Hearings could be held with the candidates to assess their eligibility. The AC could spell out a set of guidelines designed to facilitate, not restrict, this process.

Since members of any ethnic community are typically organized already into a variety of associations and corporations, it would be useful to make a list of them and invite them all to join in the nominating process. No organized group composed primarily of members of the ethnic community concerned should be excluded from this process, and they could also play a useful role in nominating members to run for election to the ethnic council, mobilizing their own members to join in the electoral process. To launch the process, a member or employee of the AC should meet with officers of the leading ethnic organizations belonging to a community and invite them to help create the proposed Association.

Securing nominations could be a sequential process. One might start with the most easily identifiable and responsive communities as a pilot project, and go on to others after the procedure had been tested and evaluated. Moreover, the Government should provide a start-up grant to enable every nominating committee to do its work in a responsible and efficient way. Launching the process incrementally would reduce the start-up costs. Each year a number of grants might be authorized to help ethnic communities organize themselves to make nominations. The groups to be selected should, perhaps, be the first to apply. This would prevent charges of favoritism that might discredit the process. An incremental model should be followed which would enable a small number of appointed members to be added to the NSC each year. Experience gained with the first members would help improve the procedures followed with subsequent appointees.

Since the appointed Members would have a fixed term in office, the ECA councils would not need to be activated frequently. However, after they have been established, they might decide to hold regular meetings, to provide their Members with a lively socio-political support base, both to raise agenda questions and to help implement suggestions made by their Member.

Each ECA could also do other useful things. If so, it should be able to finance these activities by collecting dues from its members. If they decided to become more active and found interesting and useful things to do, they might also seek independent funding to support their work. We visualize activities that would not only promote the personal welfare and creativity of members, but also contribute to the common welfare of British society and minimize the pain caused by conflicting interests and prejudices.

Ethnic associations should avoid partisanship, but they could encourage their members to join political parties on an individual basis. No doubt there could be a temptation for these associations to support political activities on behalf of their members, but we suspect that would undermine their credibility and usefulness. Instead, they should encourage members with grievances to find other ways to organize themselves for political action. To gain recognition for their nominees, ECAs ought to bind themselves to pursue their goals in non-partisan ways, following guide-lines familiar to all academic professional societies. Moreover, when their nominees are selected as NSC Members, they ought not to accept party membership nor be listed with a party label, and they should avoid becoming activists on behalf of candidates for the HOC.  Instead, they should focus on activities that involve their participation in the work of the NSC on behalf of the communities they represent.

III. GEOGRAPHICALLY DEFINED REGIONS

For the purposes of the NSC, "regions" are geographically defined zones, recognized by the Appointments Commission, but that do not necessarily coincide with any electoral district or self-governing jurisdiction. Their residents should have the authority to elect Members of the NSC. The Wakeham Report proposes that Members from regions be elected, and presumably all residents of any geographically defined region would be eligible to vote. The Report, however, fails to establish the criteria that would support the identification of any area as a region. We think the AC should first establish such criteria and then proceed to recognize areas that meet them and will, therefore, have the right to directly elect Members of the NSC.

Some "regions," of course, already have members in the HOC and, consequently, they are 'represented' regions. However, such representation is presently constructed along party political lines, rather than along regional or community association per se. Areas that already have their own parliaments such as Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland thereby have representation and would not, therefore, necessarily automatically be entitled to directly elect Members of the NSC (See Annex #3: The Electoral Process). However, the AC could identify un(der)represented regions within these existing jurisdictions, or cutting across their boundaries. Among the criteria that the AC could take into account are any cultural, social or economic features that define a region. The AC could also establish limits on the number of regions to be recognized, and identify them incrementally, not all at once. They might extend recognition for a limited number of years, subject to renewal. In every case, citizens residing in an un(der)represented region should petition the AC for recognition before becoming eligible for this privilege. Therefore, these are not 'top down' or 'administrative' regions or districts, but rather should be 'bottom up' or 'self-constituting' regional communities actively seeking representation as such.

The UK is presently subdivided into counties each of which has some historical or geographical rationale. As noted above, the populations of these counties are assigned to electoral districts that enable them to gain political representation in Government. However, the same people often identify culturally and traditionally with geographic regions that cut across county and district lines. Some examples might be the Northeast and the Southwest of England. To gain recognition by the AC, some members of any region need to take the initiative by petition to establish their qualifications. Should residents of such regions, as citizens living in a represented district, be represented concurrently in both chambers? We think the proposed scheme will authorize possible dual representation in 'regions' and the NSC. However, what are the criteria that justify recognition of special claims for such 'additional' voice for residents of "un(der)represented regions"? Admittedly, globalization has led to demographic and economic changes that now further legitimize regional claims for some form of political recognition. We need to see how these differences transcend the more permanent and basic criteria established for purposes of representation in the HOC (for clarification of this complex question, see Annex #4: Implications of Globalisation for Democracy).

IV.NON-GEOGRAPHIC COMMUNITIES

By contrast with geographically bounded regions, we recognize a general category of communities whose members share some non-geographical properties that identify them as a group. They tend to be geographically dispersed, both nationally and internationally. Examples include professional, ideological, academic, corporate, and artistic communities. Among them importantly, we include ethnic communities as groups whose members are identified by their ancestry, geographical origins, language, or sometimes by religious affiliation.

Typically, members of ethnic communities are scattered throughout a population making them minorities who cannot secure political representation in parliament, especially when single-member districts prevail, as in the Westminster model (See Annex #5. Constitutional Structure as a Causal Force). If members of any such community are elected to the HOC, they will view their responsibility primarily in relation to their party affiliation and to their constituency in their home districts. Although they may well sympathise with problems of an ethnic community, they are not in a position to directly represent them politically nor to lead them at the national level.

We therefore believe dispersed ethnic communities should be able to nominate qualified persons to represent their interests as Members of the NSC. As already stated above, they would be nominated by the communities they represent, but their appointment to the chamber would be made by the AC. Although religion, language and so-called 'racial' markers such as skin colour or other physical features are often viewed as criteria of ethnicity, we think it would be advantageous in the UK to focus primarily on geographical origins, language and shared ancestry. A few comments are needed to explain this preference.

Normally, of course, geographic criteria refer to a country (or state) but sometimes they may include several states or regions within a state (Turkish vs. Greek Cypriots, for example). Sometime they may even be continental in scope. This is especially useful as a way to avoid 'racial' markers. Racial criteria which rely heavily on skin colour should in our view be eliminated. Comparable results can be achieved by geographic criteria that avoid charges of racism and biological determinism. For example, black people often call themselves Africans.  Parallel usages recognize Arab, Asian, Hispanic, and even indigenous peoples. The point is to avoid skin color as a criterion for identifying ethnic communities; other criteria are available and avoid the problematics of racism.

We are also deeply troubled by the use of religious affiliation as an independent criterion for Membership of the NSC.  Religion certainly should not be viewed as an ethnic marker.  The Wakeham Report recognizes religious communities as a separate (apparently non-ethnic) category, and mentions non-Christians. It allocates 26 places for religious communities, of whom 16 should represent the Church of England, 5 other Christian denominations in England, and 5 for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Remarkably and inexplicably, no seats are reserved for non-Christians! Even among Christians, no provision is made for Catholics! In our view this entire scheme is an unworkable and backward looking idea. Religious criteria for representation in the NSC should not be pursued, and certainly not in such a blatantly exclusive and 'Anglo-centric' way. This could only prove to be divisive and produce the opposite of progress towards a truly multi-cultural society.

Grace Davie, writing for UNESCO, offers additional support for this view in '' Religious Representation in a Revised House of Lords " ⁽¹⁸⁾ . She writes: Are the constituencies to be represented composed of communities or aggregates and is such representation to be formalised or left to chance? Are Muslims, for example, to be elected as Muslims (representing a distinct constituency) or as individuals, taking their chance alongside everyone else? A pluralism of communities implies the former; a pluralism of individuals implies the latter." Of course, this puzzle applies to any kind of ascriptive community, but especially to those based on religious faith. Davie offers no concrete answer to the puzzle, but we suggest representation in the HOC continue to be based primarily on individual voters, whereas communities as such should be represented in the NSC. (For a conspectus of global communities of faith see TheoLogic . ⁽¹⁹⁾ ) We suspect that in each relevant case, those who would qualify for NSC representation could be classed as essentially ethnic in character, not religious.

In any event, having clerical peers in the NSC in this day and age is surely as antiquated as having Hereditary Lords. They should, therefore, be phased out.  Nor should they be smuggled back in by using religious categories to define ethnic communities. In some special cases, like Northern Ireland, where the Protestant/Catholic division is salient, equivalent results could be achieved by using political rather than religious orientation -- nationalist vs. unionist, for example -- to secure recognition for communities that might also be characterized by religious affiliation. Throughout the UK, the major religious communities are well represented in the general population and achieve adequate political representation through the political parties.

The AC should not have the authority to merely co-opt individuals to represent any community. Instead, such communities should be able to organize themselves and step forward to nominate candidates, thereby fulfilling the goal of activating and recognizing "self-constituting communities." However, as stated before, we do think the AC should have the right to evaluate nominations offered by communities and to select individuals for actual appointment to the NSC in consultation with the nominating association(s). This would also be a reasonable procedure to screen out candidates who might be proposed by ambitious or silly groups seeking to take advantage of the process in an arbitrary and unfair way. It is quite important for the first precedent-setting cases to be very carefully handled with support from concerned citizens and scholarly groups. To facilitate the launching of this process, we suggest that a respected academic body could be invited to offer advice on how to proceed, and perhaps even to help implement one or two pilot projects (e.g. the University of Bradford's Peace Studies Department, and/or the Centre for Research in Ethnic Relations at the University of Warwick). After precedents have been established, it should be feasible for other communities to create mechanisms for nominating candidates in an orderly and responsible way without any external assistance (See Annex #6: Elections and Nominations).

V. NATIONS: A PROBLEMATIC CATEGORY

The word nation is typically paired with region in the Wakeham Report, but we argue that 'nation' should be used with care. Possibly, it should even be deleted from the vocabulary of the Appointments Commission. Clarity of thought is enhanced by replacing nation with ethnic community for the purposes of the NSC. We understand a nation to be a type of ethnic community whose members exercise or claim sovereignty or the right to self-government. When this right has been established, as in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, they become, de facto sovereign nations able to exercise the powers of self-government through representative assemblies authorized by the UK Parliament and accepted  by the European Union. Since they have self-government through "devolved institutions," they are already included in the category of the 'represented'. If, perchance, it is concluded that these nations are inadequately represented in Parliament, they could still be classed as 'regions' and given the right to elect Members to the NSC, as discussed previously.

However, there may also be un(der)represented regions within each pressently recognised nation of Britain, e.g. Highlanders, Lowlanders, and Islanders within Scotland. There are also several important regions within England: for example the Northeast, Cumbria, Cornwall, Yorkshire and the Midlands. We suggest that their interests as unrepresented communities or minorities can be accommodated by treating them as 'regions' in the NSC.

The word, nation, is also used ambiguously to refer to ethnic communities that claim the sovereign authority to govern themselves but have not yet acquired that right. We can think of them as aspirant nations. Because nation also refers to communities that have self-governing status, it is confusing to use this word for this concept. It makes more sense to think of them as ethnic communities and to recognize their right to nominate candidates whom the AC may appoint to the NSC. In short, all nations, as this word is used in this paper, can be understood as either sovereign sub-states with representation as exercised by self-government, as regions entitled to elect Members of the NSC, or as ethnic communities who can nominate candidates and ask the AC to appoint them. In fact, there are many problems involving the identification and organization of ethnic communities and nationalist movements that need to be better understood and confronted. Our proposals can provide a basis for studies both by outside agencies and committees of the NSC that would be intrinsically useful and also provide criteria for the development of the proposals contained in this paper (for further details and suggestions see Annex #7: The Development of Ethnic Communities).

VI. REPRESENTATION OUTSIDE THE UK

All references in the Wakeham Report are to the communities living in the UK. Recommendation #31 clearly stipulates that there should be representation for all the "nations" and regions of the UK. As noted above, we think sovereign nations within the UK should be represented in the Lower Chamber, but not the Second. Moreover, there might well be regions within such nations that lack political representation -- the Scottish Highlands and Islands, for example. If so, they could be authorized to elect Members to the redesigned HOL (NSC).

In addition, there are British people living outside the UK who are not represented in the Commons. We suggest that they be given a voice by expanding the communities covered by the redesigned Second Chamber (See Annex #1: The British People -- a Global Concept). In making this suggestion, we are taking into account Recommendation #34 which asserts that while Overseas Territories should not be "formally represented (as they are in the Senate of France),"individuals from these Territories (Gibraltar, Bermuda, Falklands, Cayman Islands) "might be offered membership on a personal basis."  We agree that Overseas Territories ought not to be represented as such in the HOC and that some of their concerns are more properly handled through Commonwealth institutions. However, there are two groups of British people that are not now represented politically and an expanded NSC could include Members able to speak to their concerns. These include the Crown Dependencies and British people in diaspora.

The Crown Dependencies (The Isle of Man and the Channel Islands) are not mentioned in the Wakeham Report, and they are not included in the boundaries of the UK. Since they are not represented in Parliament, it can be argued that as a chamber of Parliament, the NSC should not include Members from these places. However, we suggest that it would make sense to give them a kind of honorary status by permitting them, if they wish, to elect individuals able to represent them in the NSC.

The British Diaspora is not represented as such politically in the UK, but clearly it is both affected by decisions of Parliament and could well contribute usefully to its deliberations, especially if the new resources offered by the internet are used efficiently (See Annex #8:  Diasporic Communities). Shouldn't British diasporan communities living abroad be given the right to nominate persons for appointment to the NSC? Current practice authorizes the AC to accept diasporans as nominees for NSC Membership if they are registered for tax purposes in the UK. However, this stipulation severely limits the ability of most British citizens living abroad to gain representation in the UK. Because diasporans are dispersed and do not constitute a geographical region, they should not have the right to directly elect Members in the NSC in the manner of a recognised region. Therefore, the rules governing the nomination of representatives from ethnic communities ought to apply to them as a group. In our view, acceptance of these proposals can strengthen the ability of the NSC to play a positive international role, supplementing informally but significantly the various established organs for managing the international relations of the UK. ( For further thoughts on this matter see Annex #9: International Dimensions).

VII. SUPPORTING ACTIONS

Ideally, nominating candidates to represent a geographically dispersed community should be carried out by an association whose members include most of the adults who identify with that community, as discussed earlier. Here our focus is on what the NSC can do to facilitate the development of this fragile yet crucial institutional structure. Members of any dispersed community need to form an association representing their interests for the recommendations offered in this paper to be implemented. However, such associations are fragile and not alwaays likely to be formed spontaneously. The possibility of nominating candidates for Membership of the NSC provides an incentive, but it might not be enough. Consequently, we think it important for the NSC to provide some help and incentives to facilitate the establishment of these associations and to facilitate their work. We believe such assistance can be provided at the stage of creating an association, using staff (especially interns) and utilizing the internet.

1. Creating Associations. The first step, no doubt, involves surveying the existing organizational structure of a community, its cleavages and grounds for cohesion, the nature and willingness to cooperate of existing community organizations. To our knowledge, the Centre for Research on Ethnic Relations at the University of Warwick is presently compiling a new database of information about British ethnic minorities. This or a similar database could be a good resource to consult when creating a map of the existing organizational structure of ethnic communities in the UK (Preliminary information is available from the University of Warwick, Center for Research on its Home Page ⁽²⁰⁾).

Once created for the purpose of nominating NSC Members, questions about maintaining and using this resource will become meaningful.  In principle, modest dues paid by association members will sustain their basic operations as non-profit organizations. However, they may need help in the form of start-up subventions.  More importantly, they will need leadership not driven by the specific goals of any of the existing specialized groups formed by association members. The NSC member representing that community should play a leading role, but she/he will need staff assistance.

2. Interns.   Rec. #125 of the Wakeham Report stipulates that that the NSC should provide "additional office and secretarial resources" to enable Members to be more effective. Members should also be paid expenses for attendance and for costs if they live outside the South East of England and lack separate sources of income. To make this generalization more specific, we propose that interns (e.g. graduate students) belonging to each represented community be recruited to work with Members in order to support their leadership roles in related ethnic associations. Computer-literate student interns can serve many functions. They will cost little. Their experiences will prove invaluable in their future careers. They should produce relevant research on the processes of representative democracy, enhance the effectiveness of Membership in the NSC, and manage internet networks that will help diverse communities integrate into British society.

3. The Internet. Remarkably, the Wakeham Report does not even mention the Internet and other developments in information technology that will enable Members to interact continuously with the communities they speak for. All members of an ethnic association who are computer literate should be able to send and receive messages by e-mail, especially through their lists, enabling them to keep in touch with each other even when living far apart. Moreover, a Web Site (possibly managed by the student intern(s)) would provide background and current information for all members of each association, augmented by links to the Pages maintained by the various organized groups found in ethnic communities. Because ethnic communities are widely dispersed geographically, the Internet will enable them to keep in touch and facilitate cooperation. Making full use of the Internet will be especially important for anyone living outside the UK in diaspora. A Website for British diasporans could form the practical basis of an association for these citizens from which nominations to the NSC could arise.

4. Proactivity. The word proactive is used in the Commission's Report to characterize the AC efforts to find appointees (Rec. #97). The NSC is also asked to "play a valuable role in relation to the nations and regions of the UK. (Rec. #25), and it "should provide a direct voice for the various nations and regions of the UK" (Rec. #27). Our proposals add another dimension to proactivity. We think NSC Members representing any community should be empowered to work directly with them, to learn about their problems and grievances and to encourage them to participate in activities that facilitate their interactive participation in the life of the broader British society. To do this, they normally need to be actively involved as community leaders, perhaps primarily through the Associations responsible for nominating them. Having the services of an intern would greatly facilitate this process. We think of the Members as community mentors who will become role models for their constituents, helping them develop their association through networking and the sponsorship of activities and inquiries. This is a two-way process: it will enable them to speak more authoritatively about the problems and resources of their communities in the deliberations of the NSC and it will enable them to guide these constituents in ways that will enhance their participation in the overall life of the whole British society. They will find, we think, that this leadership role provides many incentives that will make their Membership of the NSC invaluable, even though its legislative functions are restricted by comparison with those of the HOC. We believe a proactive body of Members in the NSC will make that body an outstanding forum for democratic creativity and stability in the UK.

CONCLUSION

Recent outbreaks of ethnic violence, as exemplified by the riots in Bradford that took place during July 2001, demonstrate the urgency of the problems discussed in this paper. The recommendations of the Royal (Wakeham) Commissiion report on the House of Lords moves in the right direction by cutting back on hereditary peerages and endorsing the appointment of new Members who would represent hitherto unrepresented communities. Unfortunately, the process proposed for this end will not succeed because those in whose name the Appointments Commission designates a member are not adequately consulted. For representation to be meaningful, there needs to be a mechanism whereby communities in whose name a Member is seated will have a meaningful role in selecting that Member. The incentive offered by participation in the New Second Chamber, if properly planned, will surely generate the necessary associative structures to enable dispersed unrepresented communities to organize themselves for this purpose. Both internal minorities and external diasporans ought to be brought into this representational process. We believe that if this relatively simple step can be taken, it will create a political force and sense of belonging to the nation that can support the effective implementation of social and economic changes that languish today because they lack the power base needed to compel their activation.

#1. The British People -- a Global Concept

Important elements of the British population, defined globally, are not living within the borders of the United Kingdom. Two categories may be identified: a small number of British People live in adjacent islands (the Crown Dependencies) and many others live dispersed in many countries around the world (the British Diaspora). These people are not represented in the HOC, and we do not think they should be. However, in view of the changed design and goals of the re-constituted Second Chamber, replacing the HOL, we think it is totally appropriate for these un(der)represented Britons to gain representation in the NSC. In a sense this representation would be purely honorary because it involves no delegated authority to make laws. However, it would give them a voice that could influence and advise the Government.

This process would enable them to obtain consideration of their just grievances and interests in a way that ought to promote harmony among British people on a global basis. The most obvious device for this purpose involves simply the raising of questions. Building on precedent, consider the way this practice is now exercised. On 23 March 2000, among many questions posed in the HOL for consideration by the Government were the following:

· The Lord Campbell of Croy: To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they are taking to save the British pig farming industry.

· The Baroness Rendell of Babergh: To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress they have made towards putting an end to female circumcision in the United Kingdom.

Details can be found at: Minutes ⁽²¹⁾ Such questions suggest a wide range of concerns ranging from specific economic interests to culturally sensitive practices. As presently constituted, we may imagine that there are presently members qualified to explain the interests of the pig farmers, but not the cultural basis for female circumcision. Despite universal abhorrence of this practice, it might be useful to learn how it could be handled with sensitivity and fairness -- if members descended from communities that practiced female circumcision were in the Chamber, they could be helpful when dealing with such matters. Other questions could well involve the concerns of Britons living overseas and in the Crown Dependencies. Our recommendations provide for expansion of the scope of the NSC to include members from such communities.

There appears to be no consistent usage for terms used to refer to all British people. The term United Kingdom has a well-understood geographic meaning, including Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We propose using British Isles to include both the United Kingdom and its near-by Crown Dependencies--the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. A further expansion of the notion of the British People embraces all British citizens living at home and abroad. We can represent them as a whole by referring to the British Diaspora -- but we lack a term that unambiguously embraces all residents of the British Isles and the Diaspora. Here we will use the phrase, British People, to represent this concept. At the end of Annex #1: The British People, we have also suggested Britland as a simple neologism that could be used for the same idea, or perhaps revive the ancient Roman name, Britannia.

When used frequently, it would be convenient to have single words. If so, we might use Britain as a short form to refer to Great Britain (following the usage of the Parekh Commission report). We can also use Briton to refer to all inhabitants of Britain.

#2. Activating Ethnic Assemblies

Many organized groups already exist in virtually all ethnic communities. However, they focus on specialized goals: sports, religion, art, business, professions, and even politics, but rarely embrace all members of that community. Sometimes sub-sets of community members or those living in a particular region are organized, but they cannot speak for the community as a whole. In order for the proposals offered here to be implemented, it will be necessary to create some kind of network or voluntary association that can rightfully represent all members of a community. Its primary goal would be to nominate persons who could represent the whole community in the NSC. Of course, once established, it could take on other functions that would supplement and link existing groups, and help them become more harmoniously integrated in British society. We think the possibility of nominating a member of the NSC to represent their collective interests will provide the impetus needed to bring such associations into being. Moreover, once created, Ethnic Community Associations (ECA) can serve two related and complementary functions:

First, they would be the appropriate institution to nominate personalities who could represent them in the NSC. However, as soon as such a Member is appointed, a secondary function would evolve. The ECA could take the initiative to present to their Member in the NSC any questions, proposals, etc. that they think appropriate. No doubt individuals should also be entitled to initiate suggestions, but the ECA should have an opportunity to comment on these suggestions. Moreover, the NSC member should be proactive, taking the opportunity to offer proposals and counter-suggestions to the community, using the ECA as a conduit.

Creating an ECA seems to be needed because, as noted above, although most ethnic communities already have special-interest organizations, they often compete with each other. They lack a council or assembly that can speak for all their members, mediate intra-community disputes, and organize activities that improve relations between the community and outsiders. The challenge to cooperate in order to nominate someone able to represent the whole community in the NSC should, we think, provide a launching pad not only for creating an ECA, but facilitate the launching of other all-community activities designed to integrate a community within the larger society. The ECA could endorse activities by existing groups that serve the interests of the whole community. These could include cultural projects, educational programs, news and information, sports and entertainment, and public information projects. Substantial use of the INTERNET is recommended. Every community ought to have its own Home Page, not only for information about its core activities, but also with links to other Pages its members would find helpful. Such Pages would provide information useful to all members of a community, and also enable non-members to learn about their concerns and resources and learn to cooperate with them.

Although every ECA should, in principle, be completely self-directing and autonomous, start-up support provided by the NSC may be necessary. It could involve making funds available to help create and mobilize an ECA.  Perhaps they could take the form of foundation grants given in response to applications for specific projects. They might also take the form of matching funds designed to supplement resources raised by each ECA from its own members.

Within the NSC, there should be a standing committee or commission on inter-ethnic relations in which projects designed to enhance the welfare and cultural development of ethnic communities and their integration in the larger society could be evaluated and developed.  Parallel committees for the Crown Dependencies and for Britons living abroad should also be created..  The Government ought, we think, to appropriate funds for allocation by these committees, and it should also have the authority to raise matching funds from private foundations and individual contributors. Even more proactively, the NSC might sponsor meeting places, museums, Web sites and other facilities --designed to celebrate the achievements of ethnic communities, to promote constructive discourse among their members, and to provide information about them for the general public. Non-members of each community should be invited to participate in these activities. Of course, festivals, competitions, awards and honors of various kinds could also be associated with these activities. To help the Members carry out these functions, it would be important to provide them with staff and budgetary support -- a proposal to use student interns is discussed above in section VII.

#3. The Electoral Process

Communities whose members already enjoy representation in Parliament through established procedures should not be eligible -- this would include regions that have their own sub-parliaments such as Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. However, if approved by the AC, sub-regions in these jurisdictions might well be recognized as un(der)represented regions and given the right to elect Members of the NSC. The basic rule should be that regions represented in the HOC would not elect Members to the NSC, but those that are not so represented, could elect someone to speak for them in the NSC.

Normally, Members from regions would be elected by popular votes.  However, In the Crown Dependencies, popular election may not be feasible.  In view of the "feudal" characteristics of local governance, it may well be that Members would be elected by existing representative bodies: they include the States of Jersey for Jersey . ⁽²²⁾ and the States of Deliberation in Guernsey ⁽²³⁾ plus the Court of Tynwald ⁽²⁴⁾ in the Isle of Man.  Alderney, Sark, Herm and Jethou also have self-government as Feudal Dependencies. They should all be entitled to elect Members of the NSC, either directly or indirectly, including the eventual possibility of a referendum of all island residents to make these decisions.

The number of Members may also vary: only one person would represent the smallest islands, while two or more could be seated for the larger ones.  Our main goal is to create a public voice for members of communities whose special interests cannot be readily represented under existing electoral rules.

#4. Implications of Globalisation for Democracy

As the new millennium opens, globalization has been thrust upon us with a host of consequences, both desired and feared.  In this context, we are more than ever sensitive to the need for further democratisation. One of the urgent issues confronting us is how to accommodate the increasingly urgent demands by ethnic minorities and some regions for greater recognition and justice.

Many ethnic communities are supported internationally, especially from their original homelands. Consequently their concerns increasingly acquire international significance. We need to find non-violent ways to respond on the basis of mutual accommodations and cultural sensitivity. Moreover, there are culturally defined regions that cut across established county borders and electoral districts. It seems unfair to give them additional political representation in the Commons, but not unreasonable to recognize their special interests by permitting them to elect Members of the NSC. One of the consequences of globalisation involves the ubiquitous availability of global communications to residents of every locality, a fact that enables them to expand their networks of influence and to receive encouragement from allies anywhere in the world.

Precisely because ethnic communities and culturally distinctive regions now have access to means of communication and transportation that put them in touch with friends and allies anywhere in the world, their knowledge of opportunities and needs grows exponentially. As a result, they become more eager to register their own identity and willing to protest when they feel frustrated. We cannot afford to ignore their legitimate aspirations and demands. Failure to be sensitive to the just concerns of ethnic minorities and regions will have tragic consequences as already manifest in the deluge of violence occurring these days in many countries Moreover, sensitivity to ethnic and regional concerns and capabilities can be enriching. The fruits of diversity can both ennoble and reward societies that find ways to respond that are democratically sensitive. We seek unity in diversity, and strive to avoid the dangers of political fragmentation in "Britland."

#5. Constitutional Structure as a Causal Force

The constitutional design of any democratic regime affects its capacity to respond to the just needs of ethnic minorities and to take advantage of their potential contributions to a nation=s vitality, creativity, and economic productivity. Failure to represent minority groups makes even the most democratic regime partially undemocratic. In many countries proportional representation and multi-member districts make it possible for some minorities to gain seats in their elected assemblies and even in Cabinets. In the UK, however, the Westminster model with its reliance on single member districts rewards only parties able to gain majorities in each district. Moreover, single-member districts and majoritarian electoral rules automatically favor dominant, class-oriented communities, leaving ethnic minorities powerless and increasingly frustrated and angry. The structural implications of single-member districts for democratic responsiveness have been discussed in an earlier essay dealing with Democracy and Constitutionalism. ⁽²⁵⁾

This raises a crucial question: is there any way to modify the constitutional system so as to assure equity for minorities even though they remain un(der)represented in Parliament? Although justice for them could be achieved by a fundamental transformation of the electoral system in favor of multi-member districts, such a change would be fiercely contested and might also have unexpectedly negative consequences. There may well be an alternative that would, actually, not be very problematical. It involves some slight constitutional reforms that will enable widely dispersed minorities to gain representation in the NSC. Actually, the British constitutional system is now in a period of unprecedented flux. It is becoming more de-centralised as seen in its willingness to transfer authority to regional parliaments, and more inclusive in its aspiration to broaden representation. Both of these tendencies enhance democracy in the UK constitution and also make it more adaptable to the political dynamics expressed in the European Union.

#6. Elections and Nominations

The Report suggests that the AC should both nominate and elect Members of the NSC. To us it seems more reasonable to say that all new Members will be appointed by the Appointments Commission, but that these appointments will be of two types: persons elected in authorized regions will automatically be approved by the AC for Membership of the NSC. However, the AC will have the authority to recognize regions having this authority and, by denying recognition to a geographically defined region, it can prevent it from electing anyone to become a Member.

By contarst, any non-geographical community wishing to do so may nominate candidates for Membership of the NSC. However, the AC will reserve the right to decide whether or not to accept any such nomination. The terms, election and nomination therefore, do not pertain to actions by the AC but, rather, to procedures by groups seeking representation in the NSC. Regions (after they have been approved by the AC) will have the right to elect representatives to the NSC. By contrast, any community is free to nominate candidates for appointment to the NSC, but only the AC will have the right to choose among these nominees those whom it will appoint. However, the AC will not have the right to appoint anyone by co-optation based on its opinion that some individual can represent anyone other than him or herself.

This does not involve any limitation on the right of the AC to appoint anyone to the NSC on the basis of personal merit. The traditional criterion of outstanding achievements should remain in force, but we may expect that the AC would consult with the Government of the day in making any such appointments.

As for the electoral procedures to be followed by the Regions, we would oppose Model A described in the RC Report summary (p.13) because it strengthens partisanship. This model would involve selecting regional members by reading off from the results of general elections to the House of Commons to determine what proportion of the second chamber seats in each region should go to each party. This procedure introduces partisanship and would undermine the notion that Membership of the NSC should be essentially non-partisan, representing qualities that rise above and differ from those central to political parties.

Model B moves to a higher ground by proposing that the regions elect members of the NSC using the system now employed to elect the United Kingdom's members of the European Parliament. Model C would introduce a partially open list system of proportional representation in these elections. All of these models make the identification of regions automatic on the basis of existing electoral districts. Instead, we think the Appointments Commission ought to have the right and duty to identify un(der)represented regions on the basis of petitions from their citizens. They could cut across all existing boundaries as determined by existing electoral districts, including those established by the European Union as well as by the UK.

The NSC ought to strive to become a non-partisan body reflecting primarily the interests of communities that are not represented by political parties and existing districts. Moreover, we recommend that, in addition to the regions of the UK recognized by the Royal Commission, the AC should also grant the Crown Dependencies -- the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands -- the right to elect Members of the NSC. Since this Chamber will not have the authority to pass legislation binding on the people it represents, the Dependencies ought to be willing to accept this constitutional change that would, in fact, empower someone to speak for them in London in a way that is not now possible.

As for the appointed Members, we support the Royal Commission's view that the planned Appointments Commission should have the right to name persons able to represent communities. However, we do not think this right should be unconditional. Instead, these appointments should be based on nominations from the communities to be represented on the basis of the "self-constituting community" principle. Co-optation on the basis of personal reputation and ethnic identity would not, we believe, produce truly representative leaders. Instead, all Appointed Members should first be nominated by a body that can genuinely speak for the community to be represented.

However, the AC should have the right to accept or reject nominations. One criterion for non-acceptance could even be quantitative: if a fixed number of new appointed Members were to be named each year, it would be possible for nominating communities to choose more than that number, and to give the AC the right to select among them the persons they consider best qualified to sit in the NSC. For example, ten communities might nominate candidates to fill five seats -- permitting five of them to be filled while the others would be postponed. Each community might also have the right to nominate more than one candidate, giving the AC the right to select one of them for appointment. The AC should also have the right to reject the nominees of any community, but they would not be entitled to select someone arbitrarily--in response to an unacceptable nomination, they would have to invite the nominating community to propose a new nominee. These remarks do not apply to the right of the AC to appoint Members on the basis of their personal achievements, a practice that should continue to be carried out as in the past.

#7. The Development of Ethnic Communities

The success of the proposals offered above hinges on the feasibility of organizing assemblies or associations willing and able to nominate members for the NSC, and to perform other functions mentioned in this paper. Deeper study of this subject will be inherently interesting and useful in various ways, and it will also enhance the feasibility and utility of the recommendations offered in this paper. The first problem involves the identification of appropriate communities. Some ethnic communities are divisible into many sub-segments, and other communities are not truly ethnic in character. Some kind of panel or umpire system will be needed to determine whether or not any given community could qualify. Objective criteria should be used in order for the project to gain credibility among ethnic minorities. Any politically motivated group establishing criteria might be suspected of bias. Two different kinds of bias need to be taken into account: internal and external. Internally, since most ethnic communities are organized in different ways, often into groups that are antagonistic to each other, it is necessary to find a detached analyst familiar with the community who can provide an objective analysis. However, some outside groups also have their own biases, especially those who are prejudiced against the minority to be analyzed or against some of its members. A detached and objective study of the project as a whole, and subsequently on each community to be recognized, would be needed. One possibility would be for the NSC to contract with a respected university research center to study the matter, establish guidelines, and propose an acceptably neutral procedure for assessing proposals from dispersed un(der)represented communities and authorizing them to nominate candidate Members. Initial funding for such a study would be needed and should, we think, be provided by a private foundation or a government agency like the Economic and Social Research Council ESRC . ⁽²⁶⁾ Follow-up studies concerning each ethnic community to be recognized in the plan described here would also require supplementary funding and an objective study conducted by someone outside the community concerned, though in close contact with some of its leaders.  A possible starting point could be the Centre for Research in Ethnic Relations ⁽²⁷⁾at the University of Warwick. This Centre maintains a database of publications providing information about British ethnic communities, and is in the process of creating a list of British organisations concerned with ethnic minorities These may include groups constituted by members, or benefactors working on their behalf. The list is under construction, but no doubt it will be easy to discover its contents. They might provide a good starting point for identifying ethnic communities in Britain. Another promising possibility is CEMES ⁽²⁸⁾ the Centre for European Migration and Ethnic Studies. After identifying an ethnic community, the next task would be to map its organizational and demographic structure and establish contact with leading personalities. The goal would be to determine whether or not there existed a level of interest, and a potential for creating the kind of representative body identified in #6 above, on the Nominations Process. A mapping or assessment process would be needed to secure information about the organizational structure of this community and its leaders. A report containing such information should be conducted by a university research center.

#8. Diasporic Communities

It might be possible to expand the scope of the proposed scheme by recognizing diasporic communities. All citizens of the British Isles (Britons)  who live abroad but wish to remain in contact with the motherland. On the premise that their members would not be available to sit in person in the NSC, their participation should be "virtual," not physical. The INTERNET now provides resources that could enable Members on the Net to be established in cyberspace. Two dimensions of the diasporan identity might be recognized based on homeland segments (English, Scots, Welsh, Irish, and Others) and hostland regions (North America, Latin America, Asia, Africa, Middle-East, etc.).  By means of home pages and listservs, interested diasporans can keep in touch with each other and select members of a nominating committee who would be able to converse in cyberspace even if they could get together physically. All members on a listserv would then be able to review and ratify or reject their nominees. If accepted by the Government, these nominees could be appointed to the NSC as Overseas Communities Members (OCM). s surely feasible, and could provide significant benefits for the proposed new constitutional process. Diasporan organizations already exist and some of them have their own homepages. See, for example, those listed at: Riggs . ⁽²⁹⁾   Although no ostensibly diasporan British Home Page seems to exist, the English-Speaking Union support the wider use of English and already links many British diasporans with their homeland--see its homepage at: ESU .  On this site one can find links to various countries in which branches of the ESU have been established. No doubt they include members who are not British, but the association could provide a starting point for creating British diasporan assemblies, country by country. Perhaps eventually this might lead to a global assembly for the British Diaspora, similar in structure to the ESU and closely linked with it.  At least, the ESU provides evidence for the feasibility of an international diasporan organization. Although nominations for the appointment of OCMs to the NSC should be done on a country-by-country basis, an international British Diasporan Association could accumulate and share experience to facilitate this process. It could be consulted by country-level British diaspora groups interested in nominating OCMs for appointment to the NSC. No doubt, the interests of diasporans differ from those of British residents and the suggested mechanism would enable them to be placed on the agenda of the NSC which, in turn, could assist them in various ways. In an era of intensified globalization, the British People may be viewed as a global community whose members are dispersed throughout the world. They have opportunities and problems based on their British connections that could be discussed on the Web, leading to suggestions and questions that might well be taken up by the Members in London.   NSC Members living abroad (OCMs) should, we think, be recognized as a membership category in addition to hereditary and life Members, plus those elected or appointed to represent un-represented regions and communities within the British Isles. They can readily be linked with the NSC, for practical purposes, through the INTERNET. Thus modern technology and globalisation can truly invigorate the NSC as a powerful force in contemporary Britain.

#9. International Dimensions.

The proposals offered here have significant international dimensions. In fact, the NSC could maintain a small foreign affairs secretariat with a Member or Committee in charge to establish information links with other countries that, in cooperation with the Foreign Office and the HOC, could carry out some functions that are not easily performed by the established international structures. As a starter, it would provide reports on the successes and problems faced by the NSC and invite suggestions based on the experience of other countries. This should be a reciprocal project involving both the export of good ideas based on the British experience, and the import of useful information and suggestions based on the experiences elsewhere. It would make good use of the INTERNET. An efficient way to do this might involve working through a committee of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. A list of current committees can be seen at the IPU ⁽³⁰⁾ Using this channel, the NSC could put its accomplishments on record in a respected international forum and could also benefit by sharing experiences with delegates from other parliaments. The NSC could also establish a special relationship in the European Union designed to facilitate cooperation. For example, problems involving relations between the Crown Dependencies and the EU could be mediated by the NSC in a way that is not possible for the HOC or the present UK Government.  Consider, for example, that the Isle of Man ⁽³¹⁾ government site is supplemented by an excellent home site ⁽³²⁾but it is not included on the EU list of non-member European Web Sites ⁽³³⁾Similar unlisted sites for the Channel Islands can be found at Guernsey " ⁽³⁴⁾ and Jersey . ⁽³⁵⁾  The flavor of insular concerns in relation to the European Union and the UK can be seen at bailiwick " ⁽³⁶⁾ where the implications of monetary union and the Euro for Guernsey are examined. The fact seems to be that these Crown Dependencies are officially ignored. Having a spokesman in the NSC would surely help them internationally as well as in relation to Britain. As for the ethnic communities in the UK, most of them have diasporic relations with a homeland -- a state or ethnic nation -- from which they migrated. This relation often creates International problems. Informal links with countries could be created using the relevant Members as a bridge or mediator. Each such Member would be able to play an intermediate role in triangular relations with her or his dispersed constituencies and their homelands. They could expedite projects in which not only their dispersed communities but also representatives of their homeland would be involved. By placing these activities under the auspices of the NSC rather than the Government, it should be possible to achieve a level of cordiality and reciprocity that would not otherwise be possible. Overseas Community Members (OCM), as liaison persons for British diasporans, could play an especially useful role in this context.  Because they live abroad, they might be interested in meeting and working with hostland people who are in touch with their diasporans in the British Isles.  As an example, think of the British diasporans living in Jamaica, a homeland which also has a significant diaspora in the British Isles. An OCM living in Jamaica could, perhaps, serve as an intermediary with the Jamaican regime or civic groups interested in the welfare of Jamaicans living in Britain. Such relationships could, of course, be replicated in any hostland where there are not only British in diaspora but homeland people linked with their own diasporas in Britain.  They might usefully sponsor a web site for communications between Britons living in a given hostland, and citizens of that land living in Britain. Consider the implications of the following text which can be found on this Jamaican site " ⁽³⁷⁾

---

ENDNOTES

^1. As riots and inter-communal conflict boiled over in Bradford - see press reports and analysis at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/racism -- the Bradford Council and other community organizations responded by asking Lord Herman Ouseley, former chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, to study the situation and make recommendations. He wrote: "There are no quick fixes - deep changes in attitude and behaviour must be achieved across all communities to make all people proud of Bradford as a place to live and worship." http://www.guardian.co.uk/racism/Story/0,2763,520567,00.html

To political scientists, it seems apparent that localities like Bradford are inextricably linked with the dynamics of the larger society and that, without political representation and some degree of power sharing, discrimination and injustices will inescapably persist, leading to anger and violence. Exhortations based on sweet reason and good will need to be supplemented by political pressure. Going beyond the local context, making the New Second Chamber a truly representative body in Parliament, could well provide the leverage needed to bring about the local changes Lord Ouseley called for in the community of Bradford.

^2. Report on the Reform of the House of Lords: http://www.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm45/4534/4534.htm

^3. Report of the Wakeham Commission: http://www.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm45/4534/4534.htm/

^4. House of Lords Home Page: http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld/ldhome.htm

^5. Current composition of the HOL: http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199798/ldbrief/ldanal.htm

^6. Appointments Commission Home Page: http://www.houseoflordsappointmentscommission.gov.uk/criteria.htm

^7. House of Lords Bill: http://www.parliament.the‑stationery ‑office.co.uk

^8. Members of the House of Lords: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199798/ldbrief/ldanal.htm

^9. Analysis: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199798/ldbrief/ldanal.htm

^10. Procedures: http://www.houseoflordsappointmentscommission.gov.uk

^11. Executive Summary of the Wakeham Commission report: http://www.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm45/4534/exec_sum.pdf

^12. Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain, chaired by Baron Bhikhu Parekh: http://www.runnymedetrust.org.uk/meb/index.html

^13. Text of Parekh Report: http://www.runnymedetrust.org.uk/meb/TheReport.htm#Preface

^14. Runnymede Report : http://www.runnymedetrust.org.uk/meb/Recommendations.htm#Politicsandrepresentation

^15. Section on Terminology: http://www.runnymedetrust.org.uk/meb/TheReport.htm#Terminology ^16. Draft programme: http://www.nics.gov.uk/pfg/introduction/index.htm According to this plan, The committee's role is to consider non-devolved matters that impinge on devolved responsibilities and vice-versa. It can also consider devolved matters where all parties agree that there is mutual benefit to sharing information.

^17. Puntland:. http://members.tripod.com/~Puntland

^18. Religious Representation in a Revised House of Lords: http://www.unesco.org/most/vl1n2dav.htm

^19. Communities of faith: http://www2.hawaii.edu/~fredr/sites.htm#theo

^20. University of Warwick, Center for Research: http://www.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/CRER_R/resources.htm

^21. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldordpap.htm#order

^22. Jersey: http://www.jersey.gov.uk

^23. http://www.gov.gg

^24. http://www.gov.gg

^25. http://www2.hawaii.edu/~fredr/6-lap9d.htm#str

26. "http://www.esrc.ac.uk/home.html

27. http://www.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/CRER_RC/index.html

28. http://www.cemes.org

29. http://www2.hawaii.edu/~fredr/diaglo.htm#note

30. http://www.ipu.org/strct‑e/comtees.htm#cscm

31. http://www.gov.im/welcome.html

32. http://www.isle‑of‑man.com

33. http://europa.eu.int/abc/governments/index_en.html

34. http://www.gov.gg

35. http://www.jersey.gov.uk

36. http://www.gov.gg/emu/bailiwick.html

37. http://www.discoverjamaica.com/shop/statement.html

---

Atomz Search this site: sort by date, with annotations, or for relevance:

See linked pages: [] Unrepresented Communities || Representation Sites || Mobility and the Internet || Wakeham Commission Report []

Return to top of this page or click here for Sites Page links:

PEOPLE	INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATIONS || U.S. INSTITUTIONS || INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS || UNIVERSITIES ||
INFORMATION	LIBRARIES || INTERNET || SOCIAL & POLITICAL Sciences NEWS & DOCUMENTARIES || STATISTICAL DATA
THEMES	GOVERNANCE || DEMOCRACY|| REPRESENTATION || POLITICAL SCIENCE|| PUBLIC ADMIN. GLOBAL|| GLOCAL || DEVELOPMENT|| ETHNIC || THEO-LOGIC || TEXTS
FUNDAMENTALS	CONCEPTS || TERMS || FUNDING SOURCES
OTHER	SITE MAP || SEARCH ENGINES || HOME PAGE || END OF FILE

Return to top of this page or click here for Home Page links:

Personal Autobio

PubAd GRD

Globalization Concepts

Ethnicity ETHNIC-L

COCTA Onoma

COVICO Choices

Impeach SITES

Search Engines

---

Posted Updated: 2000