An active Parliament is not cheap. If we want MPs and peers to scrutinise government and legislation more thoroughly, then they need more resources, including more office space. There is a populist paradox in our attitudes to Parliament. The political class, its perks and privileges, are deplored in the same breath as we seek more assertive legislators. We cherish the myth of the amateur, independent MP or peer, but expect him or her to be largely full-time in upholding our rights and interests.

The implications are most often discussed about the Commons, but apply as much to the Lords. Go back half a century and the predominantly hereditary Lords of thje time was inactive and marginal, sitting for little more than 100 days a session and with an average daily attendance of about the same number. But that began to change in 1958 with the legislation creating life peers and the first women members. The number of sitting days rose to about 150 a session in the 1980s, with daily attendance climbing above 300.

The nature of the Lords has also altered dramatically this decade. All but 92 of the hereditary peers were expelled in 1999, but a large number of new life peers were created, so that half the present Lords have entered during the past ten years. The current Lords is more active, sitting an average of 160 to 170 days, with attendance up to well over 400 a day. But as important is the change in character. There are now more fully committed peers, notably among the nearly 150 women members, and there are 20 committees or subcommittees.

Even traditionalists who dislike professional politicians emphasise the impact of the Lords on legislation. It has defeated the Government twice as often as before 1999, and ministers accepted the thrust of two fifths of these changes. The increase in attendance and activity means that more peers require offices and facilities. But many anomalies remain: for instance, peers (apart from ministers and office holders) do not receive salaries but daily attendance allowances for subsistence and office costs, and overnight accommodation if needed. As expenses, these are not taxed. This is absurd. Peers should be paid, not rely on ill-defined expenses.

Most important decisions about the future of the Lords are in limbo. Everything is awaiting decisions on the House’s long-term composition. The Commons voted in March 2007 for either an 80 or 100 per cent elected chamber, while the Lords backed an appointed House.

Jack Straw, the Lord Chancellor, is chairing talks with representatives of the party leaderships, which many backbench peers say do not represent their views. He believes that sufficient progress has been made on a largely or wholly elected House for proposals to be produced within a few weeks. He hopes that the main parties will commit themselves to this plan in their next election manifestos, with action early in the next Parliament. But whatever emerges, the second chamber will remain more active, and therefore demanding of resources.

Times Recommends

• A vicar’s wife: ‘There is no one to fight for us’
• Every little helps at the supermarket
• Ugg or Fitflop? The battle of the boots