A House of Lords that stands up for voters

SIR – Charles Moore (Notebook, April 3) is perhaps too pessimistic about an effective reform of the House of Lords. Certainly any change must include an elective element, but this need not produce merely a replica of the House of Commons.

Awarding the government to the party able to command a majority of MPs usually ensures a stable administration, without the need for shifting coalitions of the kind seen in those countries that use proportionate voting systems.

However, this also disfranchises people who vote for parties whose policies are not taken into account because their votes were spread widely across constituencies. This was evident in the 2015 election in which Ukip gained a significant proportion of votes but secured only one MP.

A reformed upper house – made up of perhaps 300 members selected from party lists in proportion to the votes cast – would provide a revising chamber that represented wishes of the electorate much more effectively.

While it would not be empowered to veto the government’s decisions, its electoral authority would make the incumbent administration more aware of shifting sentiment in the country, and more likely to respect legislative revisions by the new chamber. John Bentley Buckden, Cambridgeshire SIR – A simple way to reform the Lords in the short term would be to require peers to elect, say, 300 of their number as working peers who would be remunerated and be expected to attend regularly.

The remaining peers would keep their titles, but, like the hereditary peers, forgo their rights to vote and participate in the proceedings. Edward Harrison Aberystwyth, Cardiganshire