Parliament: Fiddling with the House of Lords could prove counterproductive

In the Times, Rachel Sylvester warns that changing the House of Lords could damage the running of the country - an elected senate might not have the same independence, expertise and bloody-mindedness.

The House of Lords may be a constant irritant for successive governments but changing it could greatly damage the running of the country, writes Rachel Sylvester. It is the duty and the beauty of the Upper House to challenge the government. Instinctively civil libertarian and surprisingly anti-establishment, the Upper Chamber is unpredictable and determinedly independent. But winds of change have started whistling down its corridors. The government will shortly create almost 50 new working peers. Although Labour will still have the most peers, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats will—in theory, at least—have a majority if they combine their forces. But that depends on their peers staying loyal, which is far from guaranteed. There are growing tensions within and outside the coalition about the future of the Lords. An elected senate would not have the independence, expertise or bloody-mindedness of the existing Upper Chamber.