Here’s how we could reform the Lords for the 21st century

‘Keir Starmer, wrongly, lays the blame for our ineffective performance as a country on our civil service, when in reality it is our 19th-century governing structures that hold us back.’ Photograph: Zuma Press Wire/Rex/Shutterstock

I’m sure that your editorial (25 December) is right that one of the reasons reforming the House of Lords is taking so long under this government is that there is no clear path ahead, after abolition of the hereditary peers. A fundamental principle is to retain the revising role of the upper chamber. To that end, it needs great expertise. It should, of course, be largely elected, but that would not necessarily ensure that expertise. It should also not be too large and should have continuity.

So here is what I suggest should happen: each parliamentary constituency should be joined with an adjacent one, and those 300-plus each elect one member. These would constitute three-quarters of the upper house. They would have their places for 15 years, with elections of one-third every five years, the initial and second thirds to be decided by lot.