Letter: Lords reform
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Since the reformed Upper House may be in place before we have a House of Commons elected on a proportional system, it would be inappropriate for its members to be elected on such a system with geographical constituencies, or it would be seen to be more representative than the Commons.
A better arrangement would be for most members to be elected by specified interest groups, such as professional associations, trades unions, employers' confederations, consumer and environmental organisations, and the like. There is precedent for such a system in the European Union's Economic and Social Committee which, although largely unknown to the public, often questions proposed European legislation with exemplary thoroughness because of the professional knowledge of its members.
Another precedent is the Church of England's representation in the House of Lords by a limited number of bishops. Clearly there would need to be extensive consultation on which groups should be represented and how new ones could replace ones of declining importance. This process would best be started by a Royal Commission, followed by debate in Parliament.
It would be useful to continue to have some appointed members, like the present life peers, chosen from the ranks of men and women of distinction. They would provide continuity and would also be a source for ministers, as it would be necessary for the Government to be formally represented in the Upper House
Such a revised Upper House would hardly be content with the limited current powers of the House of Lords. There would be more frequent clashes with the Commons and more need to compromise to ensure that legislation was soundly drafted. In a mature democracy that is what Parliament should be doing.
Dr GRANT LEWISON
Richmond, Surrey
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments