Gordon Hill (Letters, April 4) suggests that it is ‘obvious’ that the House of Lords is unnecessary in the modern world and proposes a referendum to get rid of it, seemingly as a sequel to our disposal of the ‘unelected bureaucrats in Europe’.

Certainly the current arrangements governing the composition of House of Lords have little to commend them. However, as he points out, our elected politicians are unwilling to address the underlying issues which are more complex than he seems to appreciate.

Members of the House of Lords are parliamentarians, not ‘bureaucrats’ or public officials; they are concerned with legislation, not administration, and have a crucial role in checking and revising legislation that so often has been rushed through the Commons under extreme pressure of business – or indeed of events, as now.

It is our unelected public officials, together with our judges and magistrates, who have to deal with the result.

And even when checked and revised, what emerges often borders on the unintelligible. Senior judges and others have been complaining about these legislative shortcomings for years. Much of the problem arises from the over-exuberance of our elected politicians, intent on being seen to be ‘doing something’.

As our then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, observed in one particularly shattering case: “The explanation of the problem is simple. For too many years now the administration of criminal justice has been engulfed by a relentless tidal wave of legislation.” Abolishing our second chamber might be a popular move but I think that we would live to regret it.

FA Lawton, Skelton, York