DESPITE many efforts over many years to reform the House of Lords, no consensus as to what to do has emerged.

Certainly the present state of affairs is most unsatisfactory. Most members are politically appointed party hacks, political ‘has-beens’ put out to grass. Then there are the hereditaries, there by accident of birth. There are far too many members. Many rarely attend. The cost of the institution is not value for money.

Clearly the public must retain the right to vote for the members of the House of Commons and the local councillors. But the public appear to be suffering a fatigue with elections, which anyway can be quite costly.

Before deciding who should be the members, first we should decide the purpose or function of a second chamber.

The House of Commons makes the laws. The second chamber should scrutinise legislation, suggest improvements, and debate the policy issues of the day.

Members should be appointed by an independent Appointments Commission, not by the party leaders. All sections of society should be represented: charities, religious groups, medicine, science, energy, law, economics, business , taxation, pension, social workers, representatives of the old people, representatives of minorities, trade unions, and more.

Members would be independent people. They would not be politicians, except perhaps in very limited numbers. Appointments could be for six or seven years.

So if time and money are to be spent on reform at least we could try to agree upon a model for a modern, useful second chamber.

ALEX SAMUELS, Southampton .