Inactive peers should know when to step aside

sir – As members of the Campaign for an Effective Second Chamber – made up of more than 200 parliamentarians – we agree with the Lord Speaker that the creation of 36 new peers, admirable as some of them are, is an ill-judged move (report, August 4).

The House of Lords needs refreshing from time to time so that it can continue to perform its essential role of bringing expert and experienced scrutiny to legislation. An appointed second chamber can do this without challenging the ultimate authority of the elected House.

However, it can best perform its duties if those who play little part in our proceedings take advantage of the retirement scheme promoted by our group, and if the Prime Minister exercises restraint in making new appointments. As the Lord Speaker has pointed out, the Lords itself has twice approved motions that it should be no larger than the Commons.

Lord Cormack (Con)

Chairman

Lord Norton of Louth (Con)

Convenor, Campaign for an Effective Second Chamber

London SW1 sir – The new peerages both reward Conservative supporters and strengthen the party’s position in the House of Lords. These are acceptable political objectives.

However, the resultant second chamber is far from representative, and so unwieldy that it cannot accommodate all of its members at one sitting.

It would be better to have a chamber of full-time peers, limited in number to 400 or so, and paid for their services. They should be elected by the populace at large, by constituency, from a candidate list that is restricted to existing peers.

J B Phipps

Ailsa Craig, Ontario, Canada

sir – The shrinking of the House of Lords is long overdue.

Hereditary peers should have been shown the door years ago, while being allowed to keep their titles. There should also be a compulsory retirement age.

What a breath of fresh air those changes would bring.

Don Edwards

Lawford, Essex