Sir, Baroness Boothroyd has valuably exposed the way in which a group of party leaders, claiming to seek “consensus” on the future of the House of Lords, are determined to do so by disregarding completely the judgment of most of those best placed to consider such questions (letter, Feb 6).
More damaging still is the matching determination to transform the second chamber by the introduction of a majority (even a totality) of elected members, in the complete absence of any evidence to justify such fundamental change. Is there any fault that would be corrected, or any improvement that would be achieved, by such a transformation?
Advertisement
No one suggests that this would enable the Lords to work more efficiently, more wisely, more effectively or more cheaply (on the contrary — the average MP costs the taxpayer about five times as much as the average peer). Nor does anyone suggest that the impressive diversity of experience and expertise that is to be found in the present House could possibly be matched, if peers were required, in the words of one “reform” group of MPs, “to subject themselves to the electoral process”.
Of course, there are some changes that need to be made — clearly identified in Lord Steel of Aikwood’s Bill, currently going through the House. But it surely cannot make sense for the most fundamental change — namely the introduction of elected members — to be the one most likely to extend the influence of the “elective dictatorship”, which so manifestly provokes disenchantment with the present elected House?
Advertisement
Lord Howe of Aberavon
House of Lords