WHAT a relief to learn that the enthusiasm of Lord Wills of North Swindon and Woodside Park for an elected upper Chamber is not shared by the majority in this wise old House.

There might of course be some benefit in such a change, such as the early departure of Lord Wills, with or without his peerage, as he has said that he would probably not stand for election. We might even elect a representative who would be more supportive of our high-achieving council than Lord Wills has been over the last seven years, thus complementing our two excellent MPs.

These undoubted gains, however, would not outweigh the loss of expertise for which the Lords is justly famed. The Upper House is primarily a Revising Chamber, for which detailed knowledge of specific policy areas is essential. Does Lord Wills seriously think that the university vice-chancellors who made an invaluable contribution to the tuition fees debate would be there if the House were elected?

The accountability for legislation about which Lord Wills professes concern is essentially that of the Government to the elected House of Commons, not of the Lords to hypothetical voters who, in a freestanding election, would probably turn out in about the same numbers as for a local council by-election.

The loss of over 200 Crossbench peers, all independent of the party whips, who ensure that no one party controls the Lords, would be especially damaging. An elected House controlled by the Government would be a rubber stamp, and one with an Opposition majority probably thoroughly uncooperative. The membership, consisting of those who had failed to gain election to the Commons, or even the European Parliament, would be markedly less distinguished and independent-minded, so the quality of government would suffer accordingly.

As David Cameron so rightly remarked some years ago: ‘The last thing we need is more elections and more politicians!’

CHARLES LINFIELD

Bakers Road

Wroughton

Swindon