The reform of the Upper House has long been the crock of gold at the end of the rainbow of British politics. Successive figures have thought they had arrived at the right spot, only to find themselves disappointed. The late Robin Cook believed that he had secured a consensus three years ago, only for the House of Commons to prove incapable of producing a majority for any of the seven options that he placed in front of them. Jack Straw, the Leader of the House of Commons, is a brave man for following him into this territory.

The current House of Lords is not without virtues. That is in part because of the change in its composition enacted seven years ago. Until 1999 Britain had the dubious distinction of being one of precisely two countries (the other is Lesotho) which allowed hereditary chieftains the automatic right to enter the legislature.

There are still a small number of the equivalent of men with ceremonial spears and leopard skins, but the bulk of the present chamber are life peers. A sense of enhanced political legitimacy has led the new House, often quite rightly, to challenge the Government on the details and practicality of its political programme.

That feisty expertise is welcome. Yet an entirely appointed House of Lords can press its opinions only so far. The quest is to find the right balance between election and selection and then settle on satisfactory arrangements and rules for the chamber. The Times has argued since 1998 that a 50:50 divide between the two different sorts of peers would be a respectable place to start, and that those who serve should be more fairly paid but their tenure should be limited.

Mr Straw seems to agree. In the White Paper to be published shortly he will indicate that three options (total election, total appointment and the even division) will be placed before MPs for their consideration. The clear hint will be in favour of the middle position. He also wants to end the slightly surreal situation where some peers turn up in the House of Lords to claim their daily attendance allowance but then do little to scrutinise legislation. He seems to favour cutting back a ludicrously large theoretical membership (which is 741 strong) to a more manageable 450. He also suggests that no member of the Lords should be there for more than 12 years.

This is a politically astute package. It will oblige those who dislike it to state unambiguously that they do not want any element of election, either because as MPs they favour the excessive authority of the House of Commons over the House of Lords or because as life peers they do not want the atmosphere of their club disturbed by newcomers.

Britain is the only sizeable developed democracy except Canada to have a completely appointed second chamber. While this may be better than being in the exclusive company of Lesotho, it is hard to contend that the status quo is satisfactory.

On one aspect, though, Mr Straw should reconsider his initiative. The notion of fixed formal quotas for ethnic minority and women members of the second chamber is fraught with practical difficulties. Much can be done without such hard-and-fast regulations to encourage the emergence of an Upper House more diverse in composition. Enacting reform would be achievement enough without micromanaging its membership.