YOUR report on the findings of Westminster's Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee ("MPs demand axing of 200 Peers from House of Lords", The Herald, November 19) allows me to once again exercise one of my favourite political hobby horses as it confirms that unsurprisingly MPs are only nibbling at the problem, which the more cynical amongst us may put down to them harbouring hopes of later ennoblement to enjoy the fruits of membership .

Whilst a reviewing (advisory only) chamber is an essential part of the parliamentary process, what is long overdue is radical review of how it should be constituted both as to quality and quantity of its membership. For example, who is to say how many members is required for that chamber to function adequately, how should the membership be selected and how long should be the tenure of membership?

As to the number of members, a figure of 100 to 200 should be more than adequate. As a result of political patronage over the years the current number of around 800 has become ridiculous, particularly when compared with the 100 members of the Senate in the United States which has a population more than four times that of the UK.

Continuation of the present method of selection of new members to the House of Lords by political patronage can no longer be acceptable as it would lead inevitably to unnecessary inflation of the membership and questions as to justification for their selection. It should be replaced by an elective process of full-time members properly remunerated. The overall number of members elected from each home nation would reflect their respective populations pro rata, with for example half being replaced every five years.

There would have to be a term to establish this chamber during which the membership of the House of Lords would be reduced progressively down to zero at which point the new Chamber would take over. If there were an appetite for it, the creation of new peers as a reward for and recognition of past services could continue, but there would be no House of Lords for them to attend with the current rewards and responsibilities.

I doubt that really significant reform along these or other lines will ever find favour with the powers that be in view of the vested interests of the political class.

Alan Fitzpatrick,

10 Solomon’s View, Dunlop.

THE numbers of members of both houses of Westminster are totally out of proportion to efficient representation and Government of the UK. As you report, we have a potential for 800 members in the House of Lords and a committee of MPs wants this cut to a maximum of 600.

Even with this marginal reduction we would have still 1,225 members at Westminster representing less than 67 million citizens. The US, with a population of more than 325 million, has 100 members in the Senate and 435 in the House of Representatives. Less than half the numbers of Congress members for a population nearly five times larger.

It certainly makes our governance by the combined numbers of both houses look like a big political gravy train.

Dave Biggart,

Southcroft, Knockbuckle Road, Kilmacolm.

THE root cause of the current Brexit fiasco is that we have a corrupt electoral system for Westminster elections, namely first past the post. It is not, and never has been, fit for purpose, at least since the days when we still had a confrontational two-party system. Those days are long gone.

In a previous letter, published in your pages in 1997, I pointed out that the election of that year was the first one in 20 years in which I had voted for a winning candidate. I made the point that “real grown-up countries”, including some which had recently been dictatorships, had fair electoral systems and had built thriving stable democracies as a result. The much-missed Donald Dewar subsequently adopted the “grown-up” epithet, but he was welcome to it.

The real reason David Cameron had to promise a referendum on continued EU membership was because, according to the polls, Ukip was threatening the Tories in many supposedly “safe” seats in deepest England.

In reality, Ukip would never have got anywhere near defeating a single Tory candidate if we had a system of proportional representation for elections to Westminster, in which the concept of “safe” seats does not exist.

Sadly, the Labour Party, with the exception of the late Robin Cook and a few others, seem to be similarly committed to first past the post, presumably in the hope of future (but temporary) electoral advantage.

Whatever the outcome over the next few months or years, one thing is sure. If the UK ever has to go crawling back begging for re-admission to the EU, it will not happen without the introduction of a fair electoral system for Westminster elections.

I’m not holding my breath.

Brendan Hamill,

49 Argyll Road, Kinross.