House of two halves

Bill Keller warns that efforts to reform the House of Lords might inadvertently degrade the only functioning element of legislative scrutiny at Westminster (“A house of ill repute”, April). The contrast between peers’ careful examination of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill and the cursory scrutiny it has received from MPs provides a stark illustration of this risk. Keller is right that preserving the best elements of the Lords—including their expertise and diligence when it comes to legislative scrutiny—should be an important element of any proposal for Lords reform.

But those who care about the quality of the statute book need also to focus on getting MPs to up their game on legislative scrutiny. The urgency of Brexit and Covid set bad parliamentary precedents for legislating which now seem to have become the norm. Meanwhile, many MPs seem no longer to see themselves as legislators, focusing instead on constituency priorities or comparatively highprofile scrutiny of ministers.

In 2010, the Commons implemented reforms that radically improved the effectiveness of the policy scrutiny conducted by parliamentary select committees. We will likely have a new parliament before the end of 2024—that new parliament urgently needs a 2010-style reset of the way MPs scrutinise new laws. Hannah White, Institute for Government

Apropos of Bill Keller’s article describing his visit to the House of Lords, could I suggest a reform that would satisfy both those who think that it ought to be elected and those who are impressed by its present contribution to our government: it should comprise the elected bodies representing men (and of course women) at work rather than where they live—the two not necessarily coinciding.

This new membership would draw from trades unions, businesses, the bodies representing farmers and fisheries, lawyers, medical men and women, schoolmasters, City companies, the Anglican churches (and perhaps other religions), insurance companies, shipping (perhaps Lloyd’s), women’s institutions, athletes, military men—plus privy counsellors, the mayors of conurbations, counties and any other considerable body.

I would add that it should be presided over by the heir to the throne (which should familiarise him with government and give him something to do). Surely this is the way to improve parliamentary government and bring it up to date. John A Davis, Cambridge