The granting of titles to life peers has a gender imbalance. When a man becomes a peer, his wife automatically becomes a Lady. But when a woman becomes a peer, her husband remains a Mr.

One mildly amusing outcome of this is the statement from various female peers that booking into a hotel added a “certain frisson” and “raised a few eyebrows” because of the different names – the assumption being that this was an affair.

I don’t understand why anyone other than a life peer is given a title. They are the one being honoured and granted a seat on the red benches, hopefully for things they have achieved rather than for being a political crony, not their partner. Wives of male life peers should not be given a title; and neither should husbands of female peers. Or indeed same-sex partners of either sex. (As a point of interest, anyone know what is the current situation regarding this? Or has it not come up?)

What’s the point of an Equality Bill if it doesn’t even attempt to fix obvious inequalities that no-one will object to but focuses on forcing through absurd policies in the name of “equality” just to advance the career of Harriet Harman (who, oddly, doesn’t appear to have commented on this story…).

The House of Lords in its current state is an anachronism. It needs to become an entirely elected body, preferably chosen by PR based on the national general election share. But since there are more important and immediate things to focus on – such as the state of the economy and the national debt – we must be content with tinkering around for edges for a year or two. But certainly by the general election after next, I would expect plans for Lords reform to be propely advanced.