House of Lords still has a place if numbers cut and it’s non-political

I wonder if they would say the same if the Lords voted in favour of Brexit and the Commons voted against it? The Lords have sometimes shown themselves more in tune with ordinary people than the Commons and have made valuable contributions to our governmental system.

Before calling for the abolition of the House of Lords, people should give some thought to the consequences. The Lords is essentially a revisionary body to take a second look at legislation before it becomes law. They cannot block legislation passed by the Commons completely.

Do we really want there to be no check on what the Commons can do? That would make it a very dictatorial body. If it is replaced by a second elected body, which one would have the final say as both could claim to be a democratically elected body representing the people?

A second elected body would be more expensive – elections cost money and there would be bi-elections – and we would probably have to pay them. Look at the problems the American’s system has when the two legislatures have different party majorities.

There are problems with the House of Lords which neither major party has got to grips with over many years. There should be no more than 200-300 members, appointed by a commission independent of the political parties, it should be non-political, and only able to suggest revisions back to the Commons, and members should have to attend for a set period before qualifying for an allowance – or paid an hourly rate.

With the right people appointed, those with years of public service experience or who represent certain large sections of society, the Lords really would be a great benefit to our parliamentary system.

Richard Camp, Wellington