Sir, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (letter, Feb 14) has not explained by what alchemy he will “preserve the breadth and depth of experience and expertise within the second chamber” while making it an elected chamber. The only way to ensure that those elected were people with the experience and expertise that is found within the present appointed house would be for the party leaders to keep complete control over the lists of candidates, in which case the distinction between election and appointment would be bogus and the elections no more than “democratic” window-dressing.

Legitimacy does not derive only from elections. Under our constitution, life peers, appointed on merit and recognising the primacy of the elected House of Commons, have been accepted by the nation as legitimate and valuable contributors to the work of Parliament. If, as is proposed in Lord Steel of Aikwood’s Bill, the hereditary principle for entry to the second chamber is abolished and the Appointments Commission is placed on a statutory basis, with its membership and terms of reference decided by Parliament, there would be no remaining issue of legitimacy.

The Government should direct its reforming energy to improving the functioning of Parliament. No one has been able to explain how having two directly elected chambers would do that. It would be a recipe for attrition and stalemate between the two Houses. Nor, as the experience of devolution in Wales and Scotland suggests, is it likely to make for local harmony if two people are elected to Parliament to represent the same constituents. If, as Lord Hunt proposes, the primacy of the House of Commons will be entrenched, why would people of first-class ability seek election to the second chamber?

Lord Howarth of Newport
House of Lords

Sir, It is somewhat disingenuous of Lord Hunt to claim support from “the leadership of all main parties” for an elected House of Lords. While true, peers voted against an elected House by a huge majority. As Convenor of the Independent Crossbench Peers and thereby a member of the cross-party group on Lords Reform, chaired by the Lord Chancellor, I feel it important to point out that I have not at any point supported a wholly or even 80 per cent elected House. This reflects the views of the crossbench group, some 200-strong, and public opinion. A recent survey carried out by the Constitution Unit indicated that an elected House of Lords came fifth in a list of seven determinants of legitimacy.

To disregard entirely the wishes of the House of Lords itself is unconstitutional and almost certainly unrealistic in achieving anything approaching consensus.

Baroness D’Souza
Convenor of the Independent Crossbench Peers

Explore Letters

• Feedback