Constitutional reform

sir – William Hague is right to warn of the dangers of a written constitution (Comment, October 29). He is right for all the reasons given, such as uncertainty over the scope and meaning of human rights, the necessary majority provision and, most importantly, the powers given to an unelected judiciary.

It is the latter that must inevitably interpret a written constitution and, as experience in America shows, this gives it immense powers.

Australian experience also supports Lord Hague’s thesis. The written constitution carefully avoided including a controversial Bill of Rights. Yet that has not prevented enterprising judges from finding implied constitutional rights; inevitable, perhaps, given the penumbra of uncertainty surrounding any written instrument. Is it not better to leave elected parliamentarians to make such decisions? John Kidd

Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

sir – At least William Hague, as one of its authors, has realised that the Fixed-term Parliaments Act needs to be killed off.

Surely the moral of this little story is that, rather than follow the advice of apparently superior intellects such as Nick Clegg, Oliver Letwin, David Cameron and so on, we should be content with the legacy left to us by the collective judgment of millions of British citizens, over hundreds of years, to not have a written constitution. Clive Lawrence

Newton St Cyres, Devon