The House of Lords is no anachronism

I turned to the letters page the day following Simon Jenkins's perceptive article about an elected Lords ( Comment , 11 June), fully expecting to see the page awash with vitriolic letters condemning both him and the current House of Lords as antediluvian anachronisms. But there was nothing. Maybe the letters editor is keeping them back to overwhelm us later. Or is there another reason? Could it be that the majority of voters are largely indifferent to the composition of the so-called upper house, provided it is not stuffed with hereditary peers? Could it be that this whole elected Lords furore has been stoked up by the media? All right, I am sure there are a number of peers who are present in the chamber as consolation prizes or because they have contributed somewhat over-generously to one or other of the parties, but the vast majority are eclectic in their beliefs and voting habits. They support causes which are of great importance to them (and also the public) which the Commons does not always have the expertise or the time to consider in any depth. I am one of the 185 crossbench peers, "the Lords' most expert and effective element", and in the nearly 19 years I have had the privilege of serving, I know how much I, and colleagues from all sides of the house, have been able to improve hastily drafted bills which have largely ignored the subject we so care about – disability. Vast swaths of legislation have been forthcoming from successive governments involving, directly or indirectly, the lives of disabled people – a number of whom are members of the upper house – and, frankly, without the Lords, much of this legislation would just be whipped through the Commons. However, in the end it is the Commons that decides what should be placed on the statute book. But although we may, in fact, be "wrinklies" we are not "a wrinkled second-division replica of the Commons". Brian Rix House of Lords