IT comes as no surprise that David Cameron, who has no mandate in Scotland, but who nevertheless has loftily declared there must not be another Scottish independence referendum for 30 years, is not only resisting demands for reform of the House of Lords, but is planning to stuff the red benches with more Tory peers to increase the total membership to more than 800 (“Cameron resists call for reform of Lords amid Sewel scandal”, The Herald, July 29). The cost of running the House of Lords increased by 17 per cent during the tenure of the Conservative/LibDem Coalition Government, so the age of austerity had obviously not found its way into the Upper Chamber, and if Mr Cameron has his way, the champagne-quaffing Lords will continue to be ring-fenced from cuts to their privileged existence.

I agree with the spirit of your editorial (“Seize the chance to reform the Lords”, The Herald, July 29), but merely calling for reform is not enough. The House of Lords is an unelected, undemocratic and unnecessary expense the taxpayer can no longer afford, and Lord Sewel's disgrace has only highlighted the many reasons why there is no place for it in a modern democracy. Let it be consigned to history, amid a round of applause.

Ruth Marr,

99 Grampian Road, Stirling.

THE plan by the Prime Minister to reduce the elected House of Commons through boundary changes, yet increase the unelected House of Lords via political patronage indicates a dangerous lack of concern for democracy.

The recent scandals from the House of Lords are nothing new but, unlike elected politicians, there is little the public can do to kick them out of office.

In any country claiming to be a democracy the House of Lords is an abomination and has to be abolished as soon as possible.

Kenny MacLaren,

2 Avondale Drive, Paisley.

WHAT is it about life in the Westminster village that makes a (hopefully) small minority of our elected and unelected politicians behave in such a disgraceful way? Is it the artificial life away from home, family and friends for days and sometimes weeks on end? Is it the extremely generous living expenses and the ease with which the rules can still be manipulated? Is it that some think they are somehow important and wealthy enough to be outwith the normal rules of decent behaviour?

Or is it simply that this sort of thing has always gone on, but perhaps we are only hearing about these sordid episodes now because of the greater intrusiveness of the national press and the elaborate “stings” set up the catch the unwary? The first case to be brought to full public notice was in 1963 was that of the then Cabinet Minister John Profumo’s affair with Christine Keeler, and his blatant lying to the House of Commons about it.

Whatever the reason, the glare of publicity now reveals how outdated and dysfunctional our UK parliamentary system is, and brings it and its members into the contempt of much of the population. Lord Sewel cannot be formally stripped of his peerage unless he is taken to court and found guilty of a criminal offence attracting a prison sentence of more than one year, which is extremely unlikely. He may voluntarily decide not to attend parliamentary sittings and resign from any positions of responsibility, but unlike any other member of the public he cannot be sacked for his disgusting behaviour. How ridiculous is that?

Iain AD Mann,

7 Kelvin Court, Glasgow.