Re Simon Jenkins’ article (Starmer’s House of Lords reform only scratches the surface of its problems, 14 October), as a network of organisations working on power and democracy in the UK, we welcome the second reading of the hereditary peers bill last week. Although removing the indefensible hereditary peers from the Lords, whose title and position in parliament depends upon a quirk of birth, is a laudable first step, this reform does not go nearly far enough to restore trust and clean up politics.
We’re calling on the government to deliver on its manifesto promise of a proper consultation on the future of the Lords, including via a representative citizens’ assembly, to let the people decide who should be holding politicians to account and making sure laws are sensible and fair.
Continuing a system of political appointees risks accusations of cronyism and conflicts of interest. We need a second chamber that makes the most of the views and experience of a much more representative group. We call on the government to announce a timeline for the public consultation on wider Lords reform, and the means for doing it effectively, as soon as possible.
We believe that a citizens’ assembly as part of a national conversation would help ensure this public consultation would bring together people from all walks of life, to hear from experts, deliberate and make recommendations to be implemented by the government.
Amna Ahmed Campaigns and advocacy lead, The Democracy Network
Tom Brake Director, Unlock Democracy
Sarah Castell CEO, Involve
Dr Simon Duffy President, Citizen Network
Nick Gardham CEO, Community Organisers
Brett Hennig Director, Sortition Foundation
Paul Inskip Outreach, Independent Constitutionalists UK
Matthew McGregor CEO, 38 Degrees
Nancy Platts Campaign coordinator, Politics for the Many
Lena Swedlow Campaign manager, Compass
• Simon Jenkins is wrong to say that the last serious attempt at reforming the House of Lords ended in 2003. All three major parties in the 2010 general election pledged in their manifestos to provide for an elected second chamber and the 2012 House of Lords reform bill subsequently received overwhelming support in the House of Commons by 462 votes to 124, with 90% of Labour MPs backing it. Only Labour’s refusal to agree a timetable for discussing the bill because they opposed the coalition’s plans for boundary changes concerning MPs’ constituencies prevented further progress.
A new second chamber would by now have mostly been elected, but it would have been quite different to the composition of the House of Commons through the use of proportional representation and with members elected every five years for a fixed term of 15 years.
Labour should now look beyond completing the long promised abolition of hereditary peers to creating a useful and workable second chamber for which we can vote.
Chris Rennard
Liberal Democrat, House of Lords
• Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
