Letter: Proposed reforms of the House of Lords

Mr D. E. Folkes
Friday 12 November 1993 00:02 GMT
Comments

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: Your objections (leading article, 6 November) to the House of Lords and its lack of sufficient power to delay legislation, may be summarised as follows. Because its membership is hereditary, it is illegitimate, and its illegitimacy discourages use of its power to delay legislation. The hereditary principle could easily be eliminated. Nearly all those who participate in debates and vote in that House have been politically active in the House of Commons, membership of which they attained in the usual and proper way.

If only the first holder of a title conferring membership of that House, and other members who are appointed by the Crown, were in future entitled to that privilege, the hereditary principle would virtually cease to exist. But you imply that all members of the House of Lords should hold office for a term of years. Surely, they would then be subject to political party discipline and discouraged from participation in the delay of legislation, unless their majority party was the one in opposition in the Commons, in which case they would use their powers obstructively. In neither case would they exhibit true independence.

Such independence as the Lords exhibit is due to the life membership of each member. Their present collective timidity is robustness personified compared with the feebleness with which they would yield to party discipline if each of them held his or her seat for a term of years.

Yours faithfully,

D. E. FOLKES

London, W5

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in