ABSTRACT
The House of Lords is unelected. While this situation is anomalous, undemocratic and anachronistic in an otherwise democratic society, there are some advantages in the arrangement which are too often overlooked. In essence, the value of an unelected chamber paradoxically lies in its lack of accountability to either the government of the day or the electorate, giving it an independence without which the value of its work would be diminished. However, whether such advantages actually flow from the House of Lords can only be evaluated through examining the impact which the House has, in its revising role, on government legislation. Prior to the removal of the majority of hereditary peers from the House, they represented a majority of peers and, being dominated by Conservative Members, had the ability to act in a party political preferential manner – both to support a Conservative government’s legislation and to frustrate that of a Labour government. It was perceptions such as this which caused, in part, the current Labour government to act swiftly to remove the hereditary element as a first stage of reform. In the event, some 92 hereditary peers remained in the Lords, and will so remain until the second stage of reform takes place. Historically, there has also been a political imbalance in the allegiance of life peers, with the Conservative peers outnumbering Labour peers. This imbalance is also being redressed, with the government increasing the number of appointed Labour life peers. However, the uncompleted reform has led to the criticism that the government holds, through its selection of appointees, excessive powers of patronage, capable of undermining the independence of the Lords. A further factor in the composition of the House, which renders evaluation of its work more complex, is the considerable proportion of independent peers, or ‘cross benchers’, who owe no political allegiance to any party.
