There should be no major change to the role, function or powers of a reformed House of Lords, the joint committee on Lords reform has said.

Its reform blueprint dwells on the "desirable qualities" of new non-party political forms of patronage and says that any change should "preserve by and large" the virtues of the existing second chamber.

"The existing House of Lords meets several of the criteria which we have been considering, namely lack of domination by one party, independence and expertise," concludes the committee.

"If these existing qualities, bolstered by a greater representativeness, can be transferred to the reformed House, we believe that a new legitimacy, which we have already highlighted in considering the House's role, will naturally develop."

Backing peer power over people power, the committee's proposals aim to build: legitimacy; representativeness; no domination by any one party; independence and expertise.

It backs non-political forms of patronage in a bid to ensure that no party has overall control in a reformed second chamber and to make the new Lords more representative of Britain's regions and ethnic mix.

"We conclude that any arrangements for the reformed House must take account of the importance of maintaining the principle that no one political party should be able to be dominant in it," states the report.

"The fact that members of the present House do not face election or some form of reselection is an important element in underpinning independence."

"It is our view that any new system of getting members into the House needs to ensure that independence."

The committee's chairman, Jack Cunningham, praised the number of "world beating" experts in the existing Lords and a higher proportion of ethnic minority members than the Commons.

And the MP suggested such people would be unwilling to undergo election. "And if they did would they win?," he asked.

Senior Tory, Kenneth Clarke, will back a fully elected Lords.

The former Conservative chancellor compares opponents to a democratic second chamber to those who tried to block the 1832 Reform Act - which extended the franchise for the Commons.

"I have never been able to understand why a country that likes to describe itself as the oldest democracy in the world is not able to contemplate a democratically-elected upper House," he said.

"I find reservations against that somewhat old-fashioned and at times some of the more vivid arguments in favour of -independence, freedom from party, expertise, the kind of people who wouldn't stand for election - terribly reminiscent of the arguments against the 1832 Reform Bill."

Another former Tory chancellor, and joint committee member, Lord Howe, disputes the idea that only democracy can confirm true legitimacy to the House of Lords.

"But why? How far, if at all, would elections improve the quality or authority, performance or acceptability of the second chamber?," he asked.

"This is the thinking which has consolidated my lack of enthusiasm for the admission of elected members to the second chamber. To be honest, I have become increasingly dismayed by the prospect."

Accepting calls for the remaining 92 hereditary Lords to be scrapped, the joint committee reassured life peers that there would be no compulsory redundancies.

"It would be difficult to devise a fair and workable means of removing existing members, who have been led to believe that their membership will be allowed to continue, and many of whom have planned their lives around a long-term commitment to membership," found the committee.

"In the second stage of our inquiry we shall consider possible means of encouraging voluntary retirement and smoothing the transition. At this stage we have concluded only that we are not attracted by the idea of compulsory retirement for existing life peers."

Other implications of a largely elected Lords are the "significant financial consequences" of democracy, Cunningham warned reformers.

The committee's report observes that the cost of an MP runs to some £380,000 a year, compared to just £85,000 for a peer.

"A reformed House could cost substantially more, mainly because of the need for better support and facilities for members," conclude the MPs and peers.

A new appointments committee for a reformed Lords should, the committee argues, be put on a statutory footing.

But the MPs and peers recognise that powers of patronage must remain with the prime minister to allow a government to appoint ministers to the Lords.

New members of a reformed second house should serve a 12-year term, the committee urged.