With the Queen’s Speech looming, reform of the House of Lords is one of many Bills being considered.
It was a manifesto pledge for all three political parties, although recent polling shows it’s not a top priority for the electorate.
What is essential is to tackle the crippling debt we inherited and the growing eurozone crisis.
And we must continue with our crucial reforms in education and welfare, cut red tape and roll back the state.
Our Coalition partners take a different view and wish to press on with Lords’ reform and creating an elected second House.
We don’t want this, nor do we need it.
The ‘Other Place’, as it’s sometimes referred to, has always been a revising chamber, there to overlook the work of the Commons.
Packed with elders, academics, bishops, lawyers, professionals and, yes, even a few remaining hereditary peers, it has subjected potential legislation to rigorous scrutiny, as it should.
All that accumulated wisdom and expertise would go if its members were elected by proportional representation, as is suggested.
Instead, we would have yet more professional politicians, campaigning for their seats under a different electoral system to MPs.
Their finite, 15-year terms would give them less reason to identify with voters.
And, as elected representatives, they would feel obligated to challenge the mandate of the Commons and interfere in any constituency business as they chose.
Worse, the two Houses would inevitably end up squabbling over supremacy.
The joint parliamentary committee has recommended that 80 per cent of members should be elected, with numbers halved to 450, although only half the committee could agree.
Their only strong recommendation was to hold a referendum.
I agree.
Such a fundamental change of our democratic process should be put to the people.
I cannot support the reforms currently on the table and, while I agree that numbers should be reduced to a more manageable and cost-effective level, the current make up of the Lords works well.