David Smith, of Coombe Vale Road, Teignmouth, writes:

The Joint Committee on Lords Reform's key recommendations were that an issue of this constitutional magnitude required a referendum, and that the crucial clause governing the relationship between Lords and Commons should be entirely rethought. Both these recommendations have been ignored. The public should have their say by way of a referendum.

It is claimed that Lords Reform is part of the coalition agreement. Guillotining the debate is not part of the agreement. In fact the Coalition Agreement only commits the parties to establishing "a committee to bring forward proposals for a wholly or mainly elected second chamber on the basis of proportional representation". That commitment has been fulfilled and the committee's recommendations were ignored. There is no consensus, and there is no coalition obligation to support this bill.

It is claimed that all three parties had Lords reform as part of their election manifestos. This only means that the public did not have a choice. And of course, at the last election these manifestos did not result in an overall majority for any one party; since the election many manifesto promises have been dropped. In fact, the Conservative manifesto merely said, "We will work to build a consensus for a mainly elected second chamber." That commitment has been discharged. Conservative MPs have no manifesto obligation to support this bill.

The Liberal Democrats can anticipate a permanent balance of power under PR in a second chamber; the electorate has already overwhelmingly rejected PR as an electoral system in the course of this Parliament. It is my personal opinion that the Liberal Democrats have shown themselves to be totally unfit for government since the election and will pay the price at the next General Election. The electorate will be furious if they are handed the balance of power in the second chamber.

Nick Clegg has repeatedly asserted that "those who make the laws should be elected". Except the bill includes 90 appointees. So are they less legitimate than the elected ones? If yes, why are they there? And what happens when they start to swing controversial votes in the new house? And what about the 15 bishops?

This bill will pile a constitutional crisis on top of an economic crisis. Whatever MPs think of the underlying issues, I believe they have a constitutional obligation to vote against it. I urge all readers to write to their MPs on the subject.