While the word ‘Lord’ is generally related to power, the term power is contrary to the reality of the Upper Chamber. In spite of the considerable number of reforms which have been applied by the Government to make it representative, the question of whether to get rid of the House of Lords or not, has been a controversial issue for more than a century. Nevertheless, it is irrefutable that the Lower House has more power due to its legitimacy obtained from citizens voting for its members (MPs). Despite, the House of Lords has increased its influence and it continues to do so.

The present clamour for a constitutional reform in the political field demands a close examination of the role and work of the House of Lords. This essay will analyse the advantages and drawbacks of the House of Lords. Firstly, the function of the Upper Chamber will be taken into account and analysed, followed by an evaluation of its unsuccessful reforms. The goal of this essay is to find an answer to the question whether the House of Lords should be reformed or not.

As an essential part of the Westminster model, the House of Lords complements the work of the House of Commons, analysing laws from the Commons, scrutinising the decisions taken by the government and bringing a breadth of knowledge and experience to solve matters of public interest.

The House of Lords plays a major role in legislation even with the limitations of the Parliament Act (it can only delay non-money Bills for one year) and the Salisbury Convention (it will not obstruct Bills for which a Government has a mandate) (). The peers thoroughly analyse every bill from the Commons, debating whether changes are necessary or not. The deliberation does not involve whipping, due to the fact that no one party have an overall majority in the Lords. In fact, about 26% of them are Independent Lords (). In addition, the debate