Some say a new Upper House, wholly or partially elected, is essential. Others, like Charles Moore, think no change is needed. Others still believe that the existing House could benefit from some significant change. Alistair Lexden outlined some of his views in two letters to the press. The first was published in The Spectator on 24 June; the second in The Daily Telegraph on 26 June.
Sir, I suspect that few members of the Lords will share Charles Moore’s regret that Nadine Dorries will not be joining the House (The Spectator’s Notes, 17 June). Is it not natural and right to feel a preference for new colleagues who command wide respect? HOLAC, on which Lord Moore once served, should be empowered to comment on the suitability of those nominated for peerages, and not just on their propriety as at present. There is now sharper public scrutiny than ever before of the quality of those who benefit from prime ministerial patronage. Boris Johnson has ensured that. Unless public confidence in the appointments process is strengthened, the Lords will not enjoy the respect to which the success of its work as a revising chamber entitles it.
Alistair Lexden
House of Lords, London SW1
SIR – It is good news that a respected Commons select committee is to conduct an inquiry into the Lords appointment system (report, June 21).
The prime minister of the day has always had unfettered control over it. That must change if public confidence, gravely damaged by Boris Johnson, is to be restored. We need a statutory body that can stop wholly unsuitable people being given peerages by an irresponsible premier. There is a widespread view that the House of Lords is too big, though it was larger in the 1990s (with over 1,200 hereditary and life members in all) than now.
The Upper House itself has approved a plan to get the total down to 600. Mr Johnson ignored it. The Commons should commend it strongly to Rishi Sunak. There may well be a case for going further, particularly if a large creation of new peers on a change of government is to be avoided. The fundamental issue is whether members of the Upper House should in future be required to turn up and do serious work in it. That has never been the case at any time in our history. Should such a requirement be introduced?
Lord Lexden
London SW1
