Daily Junction.mobi portalPolitics · July 25, 2026 · Sarah Mitchell · 8 min
The House of Lords is the world's second-largest legislature with 784 unelected members — here's why it exists, what it does, and whether Labour will finally abolish it.
The House of Lords is one of Britain's most peculiar constitutional anomalies: an unelected chamber of 784 members, including 92 hereditary aristocrats who sit in Parliament purely because of their bloodline. It is the world's second-largest legislature (after China's National People's Congress), costs taxpayers £155 million per year, and has more members than the elected House of Commons (650 MPs). Yet despite decades of reform promises from every major party, it endures — bloated, undemocratic, but surprisingly effective at its job.
Labour won the 2024 general election promising to remove hereditary peers and impose a retirement age, the latest in a century of half-hearted reform attempts. But the fundamental question remains unanswered: why does a modern democracy tolerate an unelected legislature, and will Britain ever summon the political will to abolish it?
The House of Lords is the upper chamber of the UK Parliament, alongside the elected House of Commons. It scrutinises legislation, debates policy, and can delay or amend bills — but it cannot block them permanently.
The Lords has 784 members, none of them elected:
By comparison, the elected House of Commons has 650 MPs.
The Conservatives have the largest bloc, but no party has a majority. The crossbenchers (independents) hold the balance of power.
Despite its undemocratic composition, the Lords performs a genuine constitutional function: scrutinising legislation.
The Lords reviews bills passed by the Commons, proposing amendments to improve drafting, protect rights, or fix unintended consequences. In 2023-24, the Lords:
The government usually accepts Lords amendments to avoid delay, giving the chamber real influence.
Under the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, the Lords can delay non-financial bills for up to one year. It cannot block:
In practice, the Lords rarely uses its full delaying power — it knows the Commons will override it eventually, so it negotiates amendments instead.
The Lords includes experts in law, medicine, science, business, and the military — often more knowledgeable than elected MPs. This expertise improves legislation, particularly on technical issues (e.g., AI regulation, medical ethics, defence procurement).
The Lords has more time for debate than the Commons, allowing detailed discussion of complex issues. Debates are generally more civil and less partisan than in the Commons (no Prime Minister's Questions-style shouting).
The Lords is entirely unelected. No other major democracy has a fully unelected upper chamber:
The UK and Canada are the only democracies with fully unelected upper chambers.
92 hereditary peers sit in Parliament purely because of their aristocratic bloodline. This is a medieval relic with no place in a modern democracy. When a hereditary peer dies, the remaining hereditary peers elect a replacement from the same party — a system so absurd it would be rejected as satire if proposed today.
26 Church of England bishops sit automatically, giving one religion (Anglicanism) a privileged position in the legislature. No other religion is represented. In a secular, multi-faith society, this is indefensible.
With 784 members, the Lords is the world's second-largest legislature (after China's 2,980-member National People's Congress). It is larger than the elected Commons (650 MPs) and far larger than comparable upper chambers:
The Lords is bloated and inefficient.
The Lords costs taxpayers £155 million per year (2023-24). Members receive:
Members do not receive a salary, but the daily allowance is generous — a peer attending 100 days per year receives £33,200 tax-free, equivalent to a £40,000 salary.
Prime Ministers pack the Lords with political allies, donors, and retiring MPs. Since 2010, Prime Ministers have appointed 374 new life peers, including:
The Lords is a retirement home for failed politicians and a reward for party donors.
The Lords includes experts in law, medicine, science, business, and the military — often more knowledgeable than elected MPs. This expertise improves legislation.
Life peers cannot be sacked or deselected, making them more independent than MPs (who must please party whips and local activists to keep their seats). This independence allows the Lords to challenge the government without fear.
The Lords provides genuine scrutiny of legislation, catching errors and unintended consequences that the Commons misses. In 2023-24, the Lords amended 25% of government bills, often improving them.
The Lords knows it lacks democratic legitimacy, so it exercises restraint — it delays and amends bills, but rarely blocks them outright. This makes it a useful check on government power without paralysing the legislative process.
The Lords works reasonably well. It scrutinises legislation, provides expertise, and restrains government excess — all without threatening the primacy of the elected Commons. Abolishing it would require deciding what replaces it (elected senate? nothing?), a constitutional upheaval that no government wants to tackle.
Labour's 2024 manifesto pledges to:
Labour does not pledge to:
Labour has promised Lords reform for over a century but has never delivered full abolition. Why?
Labour will likely remove hereditary peers (an easy win with broad public support) and impose a retirement age (reducing the size of the Lords without abolishing it). But full abolition or election is unlikely. The Lords will still exist in 2030, just with fewer members.
Most democracies have elected upper chambers:
Only Canada has a fully appointed upper chamber (like the UK), and it is widely criticised:
![[View image]](/img/uk-house-of-lords-reform-debate-2026.jpg){kind=link}