YOUR correspondents today (Letters, July 30) are mistaken. Every institution contains its share of people whose behaviour deviates from what is acceptable. Churches and youth organisations have had paedophiles and adulterers; a lord uses prostitutes and sniffs cocaine. Do they imagine that the House of Commons is somehow innocent of deviance? Of course it is not. Nor is it inexpensive to maintain. The House of Lords is a tried and tested part of the most revered democracy in the world. Its function is to provide a second tier of experience and ability which can put a brake on the actions of the Commons. You tamper with such structures, long in the making, at your peril.

Of course the structure can be improved. But the difference is that by being appointed and not elected, we get lords who are able in unusual ways that the man in the street may not understand. How many excellent people will have failed to be used by the country just because they have no taste or inclination to promote themselves? Self-promotion and fighting on the hustings are not things that any really intelligent person wishes to spend time at. That is, precisely, a waste of his time. Should the president of the Royal Society have to compete in an election to be a lord? Of course not. His ability is already recognised and it matters not that the electorate understand his expertise.

The House of Lords should be a repository of the best brains in the country. Because of that, it should be unelected, for many very good minds have decided that they are the best.

Should the Prime Minister have the power to appoint another clutch of able people to the house just to try to prevent his moves being obstructed? Of course. That is how it works. Some more able people have been given the power to exercise their ability and integrity for the good of the country. And they may not, after all, support the PM, for they are independent and cannot be made dependent.

The House of Lords can even have its numbers reduced if that seems necessary, which has happened. But even a democracy needs checks and balances. That is what the Lords provide and they are, individually, however it may seem, independent in every way. Our lords are ambassadors and role models. Though unelected, they represent the people, but if found unworthy, they must be sacked.

William Scott,

23 Argyle Place, Rothesay.

I CANNOT agree with Iain Macwhirter's argument for the SNP to join in that insult to democracy that is the House of Lords (“SNP should lift Lords boycott and sit as peers for abolition”, The Herald, July 30). Trying to reform it from within would be a task beyond the tiny minority of peers that the SNP could muster, and by accepting peerages for whatever noble purpose would ultimately be seen as tacit approval of this absurdity.

The real engine for change in the Lords must be driven by the Labour Party, who have shown throughout their history a schizophrenic attitude when tasked with its removal. Too many of their contingent within the Lords have betrayed their earlier political principles when offered the opportunity of ennoblement.

Only when the bulk of these act as ''abolition peers'' as Mr Macwhirter advocates for the SNP will we see the removal of this impediment to real democracy and equality. Then we can turn our attention to that other absurdity in this 21st century – the monarchy.

James Mills,

29 Armour Square, Johnstone.

More letters: http://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/letters/