Of course David Cameron does not like his bills to be scrutinised, and perhaps amended because the Lords, with depths of specialist expertise unmatched in the Commons, deems them inadequate (Cameron to appoint more Tories to Lords, 29 July). Of course, like any government, he is impatient with delay or dissent. Of course, with a slender majority in the Commons, he wants a similar majority in the Lords. So much easier for him. But very bad indeed for the quality of legislation that then emerges. The Lords is effective as a revising chamber precisely and only because no government has a majority in it, and must therefore be respectful of informed dissenting opinion.
I was a DWP minister from 1997 to 2005, when Labour had majorities of more than a hundred in the Commons. I had to win votes in the Lords the hard way – by information, persuasion, argument and trust. No short cuts, relying simply on voting majorities. I was sometimes defeated, and sometimes rightly so; the bills were the better for it. After all, the Lords, as an unelected revising chamber, only asks the Commons to think again, and accepts the Commons decision. David Cameron can overturn any Lords defeat he wants to. So why is he flooding the house with new peers at public expense to avoid appropriate scrutiny of his bills? What exactly is he afraid of?
Patricia Hollis
Labour, House of Lords
• Cameron is the first Conservative prime minister not to have a political majority in the House of Lords. No Labour government has ever had such a majority. The Tories’ newfound enthusiasm for the Lords to “reflect the situation in the Commons” would, as your editorial (29 July) points out, lead to an ever-expanding number of members in an already overcrowded chamber.
To enable the Lords to be an effective revising chamber, holding governments to account, numbers need to be significantly reduced over time with recourse to term limits and changes to the appointment system restricting any prime minister’s powers in that respect.
Jeremy Beecham
Labour, House of Lords
• Tim Farron is right to call for a constitutional convention to look at Lords reform, though it needs to look at parliament as a whole. One reason the Lords cannot just be abolished is that the Commons is so useless at scrutinising legislation. But a few things could be done now and quickly. New peers could be appointed only on a “one in, one out” basis – if the parties want new blood they should have to persuade some of the oldies to retire. No more of the amusing but rather ridiculous hereditary peers’ byelections – hereditaries who die or retire should not be replaced. Halve the number of Church of England bishops (26 of them now). A limit of say 20 a year on the prime minister’s appointments (which cover all the parties’ nominations). It isn’t a long-term solution but a bit of pragmatic short-term common sense.
Tony Greaves
Liberal Democrat, House of Lords
• Am I the only person in the country who is not in favour of electing the upper house (Analysis, 29 July). Surely all that will happen is that various party politicians will stand for election and be voted for by those who traditionally vote for whichever party’s flag they carry.
We should at least think about the type of individuals who might seek to stand for election. The last thing we want in the Lords is a load of career politicians enjoying their perks. Couldn’t a body like the Appointments Commission be tasked with creating a revising chamber? Parliament could first agree a range of skills, experience, age brackets, ethnicities etc that were required. The idea of political parties putting up candidates fills me with dread.
I absolutely do not want the Lords to be a chamber stuffed with individuals who have simply been rewarded for services to party politics. I would like a real radical debate on how to proceed, not just a quick fix with the word democracy in it.
Dr Brian Curwain
Christchurch, Dorset
• Can someone explain why, in a democracy, it is OK to create 50 more seats in the (unelected) House of Lords yet abolish 50 in the (elected) House of Commons. Haven’t we come a long way since Magna Carta?
Stan Zetie
Streetly, West Midlands
• If opposition parties are genuine about the urgent need to reform the House of Lords, the most effective action they could take would be to boycott it. Not only would it immediately lose any of its vestigial credibility, theirs would soar and the government would be forced to react. It won’t happen though – too many vested interests.
Anthony McNamara
Clitheroe, Lancashire
• Cameron announces that he intends to create more Tory peers so that the composition of the second chamber reflects the Commons, where the Tories have a majority on 36% of the vote. Which is the biggest scandal?
John Hall
Shipley, West Yorkshire
• Two suggestions to reform the House of Lords: life peers to serve three terms and all peers to retire at 80.
Derek Wyatt
Former MP for Sittingbourne and Sheppey
