Contrary to what some say, the House of Lords helps to uphold our democracy

Please send your letters to letters@independent.co.uk

Some argue that the House of Lords is undemocratic because peers are not elected by the people (PA)

The argument that the Lords is not democratic seems to accept that most votes in the House of Commons are taken not on opinions freely made but on instruction from party whips. At least in the Lords there are neutral members and, perhaps more importantly, views from people who are not professional politicians. Is it not possible that this represents democracy?

Michael Hale
Stourbridge, West Midlands

We must put everyday people first

I don’t doubt that members of the House of Lords are “doing their job” (Nick Haward, Letters), but that rather misses the point. It is questionable, to say the least, whether the House of Lords should have that job in the first place as it is currently constituted, given that members are either appointed by the state or are there either by accident of birth or history.

Whether he or Linda Johnson (Letters) like it or not, a majority of those that voted in the referendum voted ‘out’ and may well question the legitimacy of the House of Lords to impede that in any way. It’s fairly straightforward, the people are sovereign in this matter and nothing should get in the way of that.

Mark Thomas
Histon, Cambridgeshire

It is a pity that Colin Bower (“Lords, take note”) did not quote the rest of the dictionary definition of democracy – but then that would have resulted in no letter.

According to my copy of the Oxford English dictionary, the definition goes on to include the statement “typically through elected representatives”. Now I know that the members of the House of Lords were not elected but then, as I am sure Colin Bower is aware, despite its name the Lords is the junior chamber and can only ultimately advise the Commons.

The real problem at the moment seems to me to be the failure of so many parliamentarians to realise the true, full definition of democracy. Both government and opposition MPs must accept their responsibility to uphold their democratic duty to support the true needs of the people they represent, according to their highest knowledge and ability – regardless of how popular, or indeed unpopular, that may make them.

The result of a referendum does not alter this overriding requirement. Our parliamentarians should have the integrity at least to know that there is never an excuse to create legislation that is likely to be harmful to the health, wealth, security or safety of the UK or its people. In this regard, the Lords did its job.

David Curran
Feltham

Talk of democracy in your letter pages has overlooked the important constitutional principle that no parliament can bind its successor. The previous parliament agreed to commit to abide by the referendum result, but when May called a general election we gained a new parliament with the authority to make its own decisions. This parliament can and should come to its own conclusions, and no constitutional principle is transgressed thereby.

Francis Beswick
Stretford

The breast screening IT mistakes will put more strain on the NHS

The breast screening IT gaffe announced by Hunt yesterday is unfortunate and embarrassing. However, the real scandal is that, without any prior discussion with the units who have to deliver it, he has pledged that a recovery plan will be implemented and completed by the end of October. This places an immediate 15-20 per cent increase in workload on breast screening units, most of which are struggling to keep up with current workload. I wonder if he would explain how we are to achieve it?

Dr P Kember, breast screening director at Torbay and South Devon NHS Trust
Devon

I was interested to note that no reference was made to the outsourcing of the breast screening service in your editorial, neither was there mention of the company responsible for the computer systems involved. It’s very important to place the responsibility where it belongs and it’s all too easy to blame the NHS. This, in my view, is disingenuous.

Susan Greenall
Gainsborough

The government must prioritise citizens’ health over money

I was advised that automatic recalls for scans were not automatically offered beyond the age of 70 – to continue with them at three year intervals you had to actively request them, which is what I have done so far.

If they were available on request, one questions why they were not automatically offered, and the patients could, as before, choose to accept or ignore the advice to continue?

Of course, as with many other things, not offering the options saves the government money, apparently their priority on almost anything for which they are now responsible.

Wendy Draper
Winchester

Dropping May

Some comments on the Letters page of Tuesday 1 May express surprise that Amber Rudd, having left her job under a cloud, is receiving support from so many fellow MPs.

But perhaps they are cheering her because she may have dropped Theresa May into the mire.

Susan Alexander
Frampton Cotterell, South Gloucestershire

The British Museum must make amends

Regarding “Ethiopia demands Britain return all country’s artefacts held by Victoria and Albert Museum”.

The Victoria and Albert Museum’s “long-term loan” offer of Ethiopian artefacts conceals a crucial fact: the Ethiopian items in the museum’s possession are stolen – from Ethiopia.

Offering to lend a stolen item to its rightful owner, to put it mildly, is offensive. And, sadly, the audacious offer came as Ethiopians solemnly observe the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Magdala. Emperor Tewodros II, the visionary and legendary Ethiopian king, lost his life during that historic event in April 1868.

The end of the battle also inflicted one of the most brazen embezzlement campaigns in African history. The invading British army took with it loads of objects, including ancient manuscripts, royal regalia, jewellery and personal belongings of the deceased king.

Many of the items were auctioned off along the way. Numerous others are currently housed at several museums across Great Britain. The looting has enriched some while robbing Ethiopia of its treasures.

Indeed, every piece that was removed from the country is a priceless item that has great importance to its national heritage. Many of the stolen objects that currently adorn the vaults and display cases of British museums also have significant religious meanings to their place of origin, especially to the followers of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. No monetary value can be placed on that.

The entire affair, from the initial theft of the objects to the current loan offer, is wrong and should be corrected for the sake of justice. Every piece of stolen treasure, therefore, must be returned to Ethiopia unconditionally and permanently. Once that task is fully completed, Ethiopia, I presume, will favourably consider loan requests of selected items for exhibitions around the world.

Loan arrangements should be conducted in this manner, not as the British museum unashamedly proposed. I hope the British government, and officials of all institutions involved in acquiring and keeping the stolen materials, will see the need for an honourable resolution to this long-delayed issue.

Stolen African treasures, no matter where they are, should be returned to their rightful owners – in this case the people of Ethiopia.

Tewodros Abebe
Maryland, USA

A positive future?

As an ardent Remainer I have been contemplating the future. The only possible bright spot is the annihilation of the Tories at the ballot box by 2025.

By then voters will have suffered 15 years of Tory mismanagement and incompetence. Voters of my age will have died or been rendered senile, and the younger generations will have endured a worsening standard of living and limited prospects. Few, apart from the delusional, will vote Tory.

Maurizio Moore
Brentwood