Sir, The expertise of the House of Lords may be illusory (letters, Aug 29 & 31). People with specialist knowledge must have experienced disappointment at the low standard of debate when the House touches their expert area. Clinical negligence provides ample examples. During recent legislation to abolish legal aid, many peers predicted the failure of access to justice — yet the government now proposes to slash lawyers’ fees because of the success of the privatised system (Law, Aug 27).
In the debates on the unopposed Saatchi bill, the House of Lords claimed that it was “at its very best” because of “its immense knowledge” [Hansard, Dec 12, 2014] even though the Medical Innovation Bill was almost universally condemned by leading experts. The bill was rejected by the elected House of Commons and the Welsh Assembly.
The justification for a second chamber is effective legislative scrutiny. Political patronage in appointments confers honour, not wisdom, on those ennobled.
Dr Michael Powers, QC
Dr Anthony Barton, solicitor
Advertisement
Editors, Clinical Negligence (fifth edition), London WC2
Sir, Public disquiet — and now, apparently, peers’ disquiet as expressed by Lord Lamont of Lerwick — on the numbers and make-up of the House of Lords is increasingly justified, particularly in this time of austerity (reports, Aug 28).
The United States is able to function with a senate of 100 members and a House of Representatives capped by law at 435 members. Why then is it necessary for each of our Houses of Parliament to exceed that required in total by America? Is this a reflection of a disparity in political output between the two countries?
MG webb
Culcheth, Cheshire
Advertisement
Sir, Katie Ghose, the chief executive of the Electoral Reform Society (letter, Aug 28), laments the House of Lords as often being “a chamber of ex-politicians”, then immediately suggests elections as the solution — which would merely replace “ex-politicians” with “current” ones.
Sebastian Marr
Hardenhuish, Wilts
Sir, Janice Turner exaggerates a little in saying that Churchill “despised” the Lords ( “Cameron dishonours the honours system”, Opinion, Aug 29). Churchill excoriated it for blocking Liberal reforms before the First World War; thereafter he gave it little thought. “The House of Lords means nothing to him,” Lord Moran noted in his diary on February 18, 1953, after a brief conversation about strengthening its powers.
Churchill joked that there should be a “disapeerage”. Those who failed to make a contribution should be taken down a rung. An idle viscount would be demoted to baron; an idle baron would “disapeer”. Should this ploy be applied to today’s inert life barons?
Advertisement
Lord Lexden
House of Lords