The peril prevalent in an unelected revising chamber in the Parliament of the United Kingdom  has been a concern for the citizens and the government of the country since the last century.

The status of the upper chamber made up of Lords Spiritual (senior bishops of Church of England), Hereditary Lords (inherited peerage) and Life Lords (appointed peerage) all either members by birth or appointed by the recommendation of the Prime Minister totaling about 13300 was deemed unacceptable .

 The need to address this situation produced the Parliament Act of 1911 and its amendment in 1949, viewed as an extension of the other, are a part of the Constitution of the United kingdom that asserted in 1911 the supremacy of the House of Commons by limiting the legislation-blocking powers of the House of Lords.

The stipulation being if the provisions of the Act are met, bills will be passed without the approval of the House of Lords, while the tenure of a Parliament was also reduced from seven years to five years.

This development progressed in the 1949 amendment Act, which reduced the period that the House of Lords can delay bills from two years to one.

Further more, in 1999 the House of Lords Act was enacted to reform  the Upper Chamber which reduced the number of hereditary peers from 759 to 92 but paved way for an increasing number of Life peers.

 Perhaps the Wakeham Commission set up in 2000 to finesse the reform of 1999 would produce a revising chamber that would be an effective check on the government and be accountable to the electorate, it was envisaged.

 The Commission recommended reducing their number to 550 consisting of appointees from an Independent Commission and an elected minority between 60 and 195 that would serve for 15 years. And the abolishment of the remaining hereditary peers.

However, heavy criticism crippled the report. The main speculation remains whether the British government is ready to abolish its aristocratic class that is profoundly connected to its history, culture, tradition and an extension of its monarchy which is the emblem of the nation.

Furthermore is it wise to lean towards a republican state and abandon a system that provides adequate Checks and Balances, in relation to the Queen as head of state that complements the Prime Minister who is the head of government? Many would agree not.