Lord Speaker Norman Fowler’s letter (8 March) hailing gradual piecemeal reform of the House of Lords is persuasive, but not convincing. There is a democratic solution that squares most circles, which is a 500-strong senate elected on a national party list system. Each party’s list would be elected according to the proportion of the electorate voting for it – eg a party gaining 20% would have its top 100 nominees elected. This would enable parties or other groups who can field a significant bloc to ensure the election of expert working senators. Elections would coincide with those for the Commons, and mid-term vacancies filled by the next person on the relevant list. The senate would therefore be elected by a PR system, but one which gives a lesser personal mandate to its members than MPs have. Its powers need not change from those of the Lords. It is important that the proportions elected are those of the electorate, not those voting. This would leave unfilled seats (eg 30% on a 70% turnout) to be filled by non-party appointees with wisdom and experience to contribute. The size of this non-democratic but useful element would therefore be decided democratically.
Philip Pavey
Epsom, Surrey
• Those who demand an elected upper house should think again. The value of the Lords, so well demonstrated in the votes of the past week, depends on the independence of its members. At present they are free to vote with their consciences as they have no need to reflect the views of an electorate. These votes show how the Lords can think for themselves. The upper house should not be elected. It only needs reform. For instance, a retirement age should be mandatory. (I am married to a retired member of the Lords.)
Alice Renton
Lewes, East Sussex
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters
