Marina Hyde makes important and valid points in relation to the way pundits comment and speculate on Charlotte Owen (Here’s the real ‘enigma’ about Charlotte Owen: why we still take sexist gossip so seriously, 17 September).
However, as it is the UK taxpayer who funds her position in the House of Lords we should be entitled to access a very clearly documented justification for her appointment, including the reason for her appointment to her role in No 10, and what she achieved in that role (or in any other role), to justify her elevation to the peerage.
The fact that she was appointed by Boris Johnson, someone whose judgment has previously been seriously questioned in relation to his appointment of Evgeny Lebedev, further justifies any public concerns. As a matter of ethical governance, the same principle of access and transparency should apply to all elevations to the upper house.
Dr David Coles
Elsdon, Northumberland
• I have found one of the very rare things on which I disagree with Marina Hyde. I actually do think it’s a good idea to appoint a 29-year-old as a peer. One of the things that makes the Lords so unrepresentative is that the average age of its members is 71. Young people have no voice there. Until we get an elected second chamber, we should be putting more people in their 20s and 30s into the Lords.
Daniel Owen
Torrington, Devon
• Marina Hyde tells us that Owen turns up regularly in the House of Lords: I would too if I could receive the £361 per day that lords get for attending. Not to mention travel expenses and subsidised meals. It would make a trip from Exeter very worthwhile.
Pauline Gibson
Exeter
• 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.
