Your leader on the House of Lords (1 May) is substantially unfair. It makes no mention of the special committee that I set up under Terry Burns to reduce the size of the house. Its proposals included a permanent cap on numbers, and new members being appointed for only limited periods. Most significantly, these proposals were accepted without division by the Lords following a debate in December. Since then the prime minister has responded. Contrary to what you suggest, she has agreed that a reduction in numbers is necessary and that she herself will follow a path of moderation. No longer will holding particular office, political or non-political, give an automatic entitlement to membership. The days of mass appointments of Tony Blair and David Cameron are over.
We are working to reduce the size of the house but without the advantage of legislation. The government has made it clear (as would any government) that, with Brexit taking up so much time in parliament, it would be ludicrous to add a House of Lords Reform Act into the mix. Those proposing their own pet schemes of reform that require primary legislation will be disappointed. It would be better, rather than railing against the Lords, if we could agree that the practical way forward would be to make progress on reducing numbers. That would be to the benefit of everyone, whatever their view.
Norman Fowler
The Lord Speaker, House of Lords
• Your editorial on the bloated second chamber notes: “It remains a ludicrous anachronism for any democracy that its upper house is wholly unelected … The appointment system is too often a way of rewarding political time servers and donors.”
Our research backs this up. The house hosts 184 ex-MPs, 26 ex-MEPs, 11 ex-MSPs, eight ex-Welsh AMs, six ex-London AMs, 11 ex-MLAs and 39 current or ex-council leaders, as of April last year. And in the centenary year of women’s suffrage, we must note it is also grossly unrepresentative. Just 26% of peers are women, while there is not a single member under the age of 40.
Despite frequent claims of “independence”, it is a hyper-partisan house: 78% of Conservative peers failed to vote against the government once in 2016/17, while the average Labour peer voted against the government in 90% of votes in that year. All this on top of the rolling expenses scandals we see in the unaccountable chamber. It is absolutely time for an overhaul in this private members’ club. From couch-potato peers to lobby-fodder lords, we need real reform now – not tinkering around the edges.
Darren Hughes
Chief executive, Electoral Reform Society
• Hold up! It is at times like these that we need the Lords to hold incumbent governments to account, as they are so brilliantly doing over Brexit. To my mind they have no axes to grind, rarely have whips to obey, and are in a position to declare themselves free to decide for the good of the people of the country, rather than the good of their party. I sometimes think there is more wisdom in the head of one lord than the whole of a political party. The way the Commons has operated recently, without this failsafe, the people could be walked all over. Be careful what you wish for.
Rob Parrish
Starcross, Devon
• May I remind Liam Fox that the House of Lords is a revising chamber (Liam Fox accuses Lords of trying to block EU exit, 1 May) and has every right to propose amendments to Commons legislation. This is British democracy at work. If Mr Fox is so sure of the “will of the British people”, perhaps he’d like to support the campaign for the People’s Vote.
Susan Newton
Oldham, Lancashire
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters
