I know some of you think the Lords should be abolished, and some think it should be elected. Let me explain my views as a member of it, views which I developed early as an MP when I had no expectation of joining it.
I do not think it a good idea to have a second elected chamber. If it were elected at the same time as the first it would likely have a similar composition. There is no point in duplication of what we have got. If it were elected at a different time there could be a very different composition, leading to endless rows between the two houses and making effective government extremely difficult. It is already difficult for a government with a Commons majority to govern, so why set out to create a stand off or log jam on any new proposal? There would presumably need to be fixed terms for both chambers to ensure they did get elected at different times.
I do not think it a good idea to abolish it. The Lords can provide a useful check on a Commons majority that makes ill thought through or too crudely political decisions. It can usefully revise Commons draft legislation to help the government achieve the result it has set. It can provide a means of bringing additional talent and expertise into Ministerial office.
The Lords should of course be subject to review and reform. I supported the introduction of a retirement provision which has allowed some elderly peers to give up their work as legislators. I support the need for peers to attend to assist the House in its work, unless granted leave of absence for illness or to take up some other important role for a bit.
The main issue is what powers do the Lords have and should they have. The current settlement is embedded in the constitutional Act of 1949, the Parliament Act. This amended the 1911 Act. These Acts assert the rightful supremacy of the Commons in financial matters, and allow the Commons majority to secure passage of any Bill they want after argument between the two Houses on contentious matters. Usually the Lords and Commons come to an agreement on amendments to bills after some exchanges over Lords amendments. If they cannot reach a compromise then the Commons has to wait a year and can then pass the Act it originally wanted without the Lords amendments, without the Lords intervening. This rarely happens, and was last used to let the Commons put through the Hunting Act 2004 after delay. This seems to me to be a sensible settlement. It is an observed convention that the Lords always let the Commons secure a Bill which implements a Manifesto promise. The Lords in these instances recognises the right of the Commons to legislate even when wrong, and accepts the Lords cannot insist on being right.