Letter: Who needs peers?

I have always despised trade unions since they became politicised; I agreed entirely with freezing salaries and shedding unnecessary public sector jobs in face of the present financial crisis. However, I would now support a nationwide protest against any cuts at all.

My reason is the announcement of a further 54 political appointments to the House of Lords (your report, 20 November). Why is such a redundant and completely undemocratic organisation recession-proof when ordinary workers face disaster?

The country's perilous financial position is perfect justification for abandoning completely a quango whose membership is typified by former Commons Speaker Michael Martin, who shamelessly claimed expenses for a second home when he bore none for his claimed first accommodation.

It is interesting that the new bunch of needless attachments are described in your report as "working" peers, a description which implies that there are others who are there for other reasons. That would certainly fit in with the complaint of Lib Dem peer Paul Tyler about "honourable" members who use the premises as a private club, enjoying free parking and subsidised catering, without contributing to a debate.

Peers greatly outnumber elected MPs and we don't need any of them; a handful of judges to ensure that proposed House of Commons legislation complies with relevant law would suffice.

Robert Dow

Ormiston Road

Tranent