The problems with the House of Lords are hard to count - their number, their supposed independence, and their method of appointment all invite criticism. Instead of the Lords, a jury of citizens should scrutinise legislation. There's ample evidence to suggest that with the right support a group of non-experts can achieve a high standard of deliberation and perform effective scrutiny - the Irish constitutional convention being a highly effective, assertive body which exemplifies this. Around the world groups of citizens are asked to assess the validity of claims in courts, as well as being brought together for constitutional conventions. It is a rare occasion when fault is found with the manner that citizens drawn by lot make their decisions. Expertise in these cases is not expected, but is provided by relevant experts. As such, I would like to suggest that a jury of representative composition be convened for each bill passing through Parliament, with powers equal to or greater than those of the House of Lords. I believe this would solve the questions of selection, independence, and quantity of peers. It would also invite participation, and could form the basis for a new sense of connection with politics which representative democracy has failed to yield down the years.