Recruitment;

Scrutiny and Influence;

Expression and

Other functions.

The House fulfils the functions of both manifest and latent legitimisation, but on a modest scale. It is called upon to give the seal of approval to Bills but, if it fails to give that approval, it can be overridden later by the House of Commons under the provisions of the Parliament Acts. Only in very rare circumstances - as in the case of a Bill to lengthen the life of a Parliament - is its veto absolute. By virtue of being one of the two chambers of Parliament and by meeting regularly and uninterruptedly, the House may have a limited claim to fulfilling a function of latent legitimisation. However, such a claim is largely offset by the House having no claim to being a representative assembly and by its limited legislative authority.

The House provides some of the personnel of government. Ministers are drawn from Parliament and, by convention, predominantly now from the elected House. The government recruits a number of ministers from the upper House (another name for the House of Lords) primarily for political and managerial reasons.

Though the government is normally assured of getting its Bills through the House, it is not necessarily guaranteed getting them through in the form it wants them. It is therefore sensible to have ministers in the Lords in order to "explain" Bills and to marshal support. In addition, the House provides a pool from which the Prime Minister can draw in order to supplement ministers drawn from the Commons. The advantage offered by peers is that, with no constituency responsibilities, they are able to devote more time to ministerial duties than is the case with ministers who have 'constituency duties to attend to.

However, the supply of ministers is a limited one. A minimum of two peers serve in the Cabinet (Lord Chancellor and Leader of the House) but usually no more than four. About ten to fifteen other ministers are drawn from the Lords, supplemented by seven whips (including the Chief Whip). The number of ministers does not match the number of ministries, with the result that the whips have to take on responsibility for answering for particular departments - another difference from the House of Commons, where the whips have no responsibility for appearing at the dispatch box. Even with a small number of posts to be filled, the government still has difficulty on occasion in finding suitable peers for ministerial office. The problem under Conservative governments has been that many of the regular attenders are too old to serve or have outside interests they wish to pursue. As a result, the government has had to draw on occasion on peers who are young and relatively new to the House. For Labour, the problem is that there aren’t many Labour Lords!

It is in its remaining functions that the House of Lords is significant. The House performs an important role as an agent of scrutiny and influence, especially the former. The House does not undertake the task of scrutiny on behalf of constituents, as peers have none. Rather, the House undertakes a more general task of scrutiny. Three features of the House render it particularly suitable for the detailed scrutiny of legislation. Firstly, as an unelected House, it cannot claim the legitimacy to reject the principle of measures agreed by the elected House. Thus, basically by default, it focuses on the detail rather than the principle. Secondly, its membership includes people who have distinguished themselves in particular fields - such as the sciences, the law, education, industry, industrial relations - who can look at relevant legislation from the perspective of practitioners in the field rather than from the perspective of elected party politicians. And, thirdly, the House has the time to debate non-money Bills in more detail than is usually possible in the Commons - unlike in the Commons, there is no provision for a guillotine and all amendments are discussed. The House thus serves as an important revising chamber, trying to ensure that a Bill is well drafted and internally coherent.

In order to improve the Bill, it will suggest amendments, most of which will be accepted by the Commons. In terms of legislative scrutiny, the House has thus developed a role which is viewed as complementary to, rather than one competing with (or identical to), that of the Commons.

The House also scrutinises, and occasionally influences, government policy. Peers can debate policy in a less partisan atmosphere than the Commons and are not subject to the constituency and party influences that dominate in the elected House. They are therefore in a position to debate issues of public policy that may not be at the heart of the partisan battle and which, consequently, receive little attention in the Commons. Given their backgrounds, peers are also often - though not always -able to debate public policy from the perspective of those engaged in the subject.

The House, for example, is able to debate science policy with an authority denied the lower House. The Lords contains several distinguished scientists; the Commons does not. When discussing education, the House will normally hear from peers who are professors, university chancellors, vice-chancellors, and former secretaries of state for education. The Commons has members who used to be, but are no longer, lecturers and teachers.

The House, like the Commons, also fulfils a number of expressive functions. It can bring issues on to the political agenda in a way not always possible in the Commons. MPs are wary of raising issues that may not be popular with constituents and which have little salience in terms of party politics. Peers are answerable to no one but themselves. They can raise whatever they feel needs raising. The House may thus debate issues of concern to particular groups in society which MPs are not willing to address. Formally, it is not a function the House is expected to fulfil. In practice, peers take up issues that concern them, often alerted to the issue by outside bodies. Sometimes the issues raised are obscure - one peer in the 1980s initiated a debate on unidentified flying objects (UFOs) - but some are of great concern to particular groups: the Lords, for example, helped put the issue of homosexual law reform on the political agenda in the 1960s.

The House also has the potential, only marginally realised, to express views to citizens and influence their stance on public policy. The function is limited by the absence of any democratic legitimacy, the capacity to influence deriving from the longevity of the House and its place as one of the two chambers of Parliament, as well as from the authority of the individual peers who may be involved. The scope to fulfil this function has increased slightly as a result of the introduction of the television cameras (greater visibility with which to mobilise support) and the limited use of committees (issuing reports that may mobilise support among affected groups), but the opportunities remain limited.

To these functions may be added a number of others, some of which are peculiar to the upper House. Foremost among these is a judicial function. The House constitutes the highest court of appeal within the United Kingdom. Though formally a function residing in the House as a whole, in practice it is carried out by a judicial committee comprising the Lord Chancellor, ex-lords chancellor, the law lords and peers who have held high judicial office. Between five and ten will normally sit to hear a case. Hearings take place in a committee room, though the decision is delivered in the chamber. By convention, other peers do not take part in judicial proceedings. One peer earlier this century did try to participate but was ignored by the other peers on the committee until he went away.

Like the Commons, the House also retains a small legislative role, primarily in the form of private Members' legislation. In the 1960s, several major measures of social reform - on divorce, abortion, and homosexuality - passed through both Houses as private Members' Bills. Peers can introduce private Members' Bills and a small number achieve passage, but it is small - even compared to the number of such Bills promoted by MPs. In 1990 – ‘91, for example, eighteen private Members' Bills introduced by MPs were passed, but only one introduced by a peer.

The introduction of such Bills by peers is more important in fulfilling an expressive function - allowing views on the subject to be aired - than it is in fulfilling a legislative role. In the 1995 – ‘96 session, for example, a Sexual Orientation Discrimination Bill was introduced which, even though it stood little chance of passage (there was no time in the Commons), got the problem of discrimination against homosexuals discussed. The time given to private Members' legislation is important but not extensive: it occupies usually less than 3% of the time of the House.

The Lords is also ascribed a distinct role, that of a constitutional safeguard. This is reflected in the provisions of the Parliament Acts. The House, as we have noted, retains a veto over Bills to extend the life of a Parliament. It is considered a potential brake on a government that seeks to act in a dictatorial or generally unacceptable manner: hence it may use its limited power to amend or, more significantly, to delay a Bill. In practice, though, the power is a limited one. The House lacks a legitimate elected base of its own that would allow it to act, on a substantial and sustained basis, contrary to the wishes of an elected government.

In combination, these various functions render the House a useful body - especially as a revising chamber and for raising and debating issues on which peers are well informed - but one that is clearly subordinate to the elected chamber. The fact that the House is not elected explains its limited Functions; it is also the reason why it is considered particularly suited to fulfil the functions it does retain.