The Government is resisting early, and widely backed, changes to the House of the Lords. Gordon Brown and Jack Straw are committed in the long term, after the next general election, to a largely or wholly elected second chamber but with an election probably at least 18 months away, the earliest that such a major Bill could become law is summer 2010, and more likely 2011 or 2012, with the first elections to the Lords a year or two later.

Meanwhile, there are big anomalies, underlined by yesterday’s sensible report by the Public Administration Committee on “Propriety and Peerages”. The non-statutory Lords Appointments Commission was firm in the “cash for peerages” affair, but flaws in prime ministerial patronage were highlighted. Some could be remedied by Mr Brown giving up his patronage powers now.

There is, however, a strong case for a statutory commission to decide on who should go to the second chamber, aside from any eventual elected element. This would judge all new peers on suitability (will they enhance the work of the Lords?) as well as probity. Both criteria apply to cross-bench peers now, but only the latter to political nominees. The link between honours/titles and membership of the second chamber should be finally broken, as it already is for all but 92 hereditary peers. As the MPS argue: “Honours and titles should be for past service; a seat in Parliament for potential future service.”

Several other anomalies could be tackled, as set out in a recent Bill in the Lords by the former Liberal leader Lord Steel of Aikwood. Apart from a statutory commission, this would end the absurd by-elections to fill vacancies among hereditary peers, in which one was elected by two votes to one. This would leave the current 92 in place, while allowing the total to decline through natural wastage. There would also be provision for retirements. Separately, members of both Houses should be required to be resident to pay British taxes.

When Mr Brown was asked last week by Sir Patrick Cormack at the Liaison Committee about the Steel Bill, however, the Prime Minister was very cautious. He said there were issues of legislative time, and about whether such a Bill would attract large numbers of amendments holding up its passage. Advocates of an elected House argue that an interim measure might, by removing anomalies, weaken the case for the wholesale reform. Yet both objections are unconvincing since all three main parties are committed to a largely elected House.

Meg Russell, of the Constitution Unit, released research last week showing that trust in the appointments process is ranked highest, at 76 per cent, by the public in determining the Lords’ legitimacy (peers themselves agreed in a separate survey). This factor, plus careful legislative scrutiny and listening to public opinion, is seen as more important than election. Nonetheless, only 36 per cent think that the current process for choosing members of the Lords is a good one.

Given the delay before long-term legislation, how long is it acceptable to have a nonstatutory commission, potential problems over political nominees, hereditary by-elections and anomalies over the odd tax exile or felon? And legislation soon would not prejudge the debate over longer-term composition.

Times Recommends

• Chelsea Flower Show has lost the plot
• The age of personal vitriolic abuse
• Obama: the new Great Redeemer