Advertisement

The Reader: The democratic behaviour of the House of Lords

Contested chamber: Sarah Clarke is introduced into the House of Lords as the new Black Rod (Photo by Victoria Jones/Pool/Getty Images): Getty Images
Contested chamber: Sarah Clarke is introduced into the House of Lords as the new Black Rod (Photo by Victoria Jones/Pool/Getty Images): Getty Images

I COULDN’T disagree more with your correspondent Keeley-Jasmine Cavendish [“Lords vote was anti-democratic”, April 23]. There is nothing mature or modern about our so-called democracy. If there were, we would have ditched first-past-the-post years ago, and MPs would have a modern horse shoe-shaped debating chamber.

As it is, the Lords were working within their rights. In this they were being democratic. Indeed, one could argue that they were behaving more so than their colleagues in the other place, who have allowed their convictions to be silenced by an overmighty and dictatorial executive: one, incidentally, that has no majority for behaving the way it is doing. That’s truly anti-democratic.
Colin Baldy

The House of Lords voting against the Government’s plan to leave the EU customs union was not undemocratic. First, the result of the “democratic referendum” was decided on a wafer-thin majority. Second, membership of the customs union is separate from Brexit. Third, the job of the Lords is to make decisions in the best interests of the people. Indeed, if anything the Lords help to protect our democracy by making measured decisions without pandering to corrupting influences.
Julian Self

EDITOR'S REPLY

Dear Colin and Julian

You’re both right, for different reasons, that the Lords are doing their democratic duty.

What else is a revising chamber for except to give the country a second opinion? And those who feel angry should take note that the peers’ amendments do not actually stop Brexit; they just force the Government and MPs to consider some details more carefully.

In the end, if the Government can convince a majority of the House of Commons that its approach is right, it will have little trouble imposing its will on the Upper House.

It is also worth noting the high calibre of some of the crossbench peers who took part in the vote: former heads of MI5, the Treasury, the law courts, the National Health Service, the Army and the Metropolitan Police.

Critics of the House of Lords love to scoff at the “great and good” but they cannot argue that all these successful people are beholden to party whips or vested interest.

Joe Murphy, Political Editor

The Standard’s ‘Last Straw’ campaign and cutting plastic use

IN JANUARY this newspaper launched The Last Straw, its campaign to cut the estimated two billion plastic straws that Londoners use each year. Last week the Government took the fight further with a ban on plastic straws, plastic stirrers and plastic-stemmed cotton buds, subject to consultation.

This year in the UK alone, says a report produced for the World Wide Fund for Nature, we will use 42 billion plastic straws, 44 billion plastic stirrers and 13.2 billion cotton buds — more than any other EU member. But the plastic straws we use for about 20 minutes take 500 years to break down.

Thanks in part to the Evening Standard, the UK will help to stem this lethal tide of pollution and support the development of more sustainable options.
Michael Gove
Environment Secretary

No US corporates in our trade deals

In response to your article [“Ministers plot ‘customs union in all but name’,” April 19], the reality is any customs union with the EU would be the worst of both worlds. It would prevent the UK from negotiating trade deals on our own terms and also leave us with absolutely no say over how third countries could access UK markets.

Remember the uproar surrounding TTIP? By staying in a customs union, our politicians would be powerless to stop Brussels granting access to the NHS to multinational companies.

MPs seeking to keep the UK tied to the EU’s customs union should think how they will explain to constituents why they voted for leaving Brussels in control of our trade policy, when the EU puts pen to paper on a deal which signs away free access for private companies to our public services.
Gisela Stuart
Chair, Change Britain

Learn from New York on high-rise

As one of those concerned that London’s skyline is under threat, I agree London can learn from New York [“We don’t need all these tower blocks”, Letters, April 23] where a strict zoning code and rigorously enforced planning law ensure new buildings work with the grain of the city so it retains its historic character.

In contrast, some London planning authorities appear to have failed to plan at all and allowed in places a visual cacophony of mediocre, novelty towers jostling for attention that neither speak to their surroundings nor to each other.

Size is not necessarily the issue. Millbank Tower, for example, sits elegantly in its site and provides a focal point for its surroundings without dominating them, as does Centre Point with its classical lines and interesting surface.
Mark Rosenberg

Let parole justice be seen to be done

As an organisation established to support ex-offenders, we wholeheartedly support Professor Nick Hardwick [“Parole Board rulings must be available for all to view”, April 21].

He cogently argues the case for, where feasible, greater publicity of cases.

This is encouraged inside prisons, by prisoners, as well as outside by careful advocates. The light of scrutiny is as a beacon in the dark, and the Parole Board should have this tool at its disposal.

The insensitive handling by the Ministry of Justice of Professor Hardwick has deprived our public society of not only a good man, but also one who actually understands what he is talking about — all too uncommon in this area of life.
Michael Corrigan
CEO, Prosper 4 Group