One of the most important roles of the House of Lords is to delay and amend laws, which were suggested by the House of Commons and passed to the House of Lords to get their expert knowledge analysing it. They then amend, delay or pass it through for Royal assent, which then becomes law. However, The House of Lords is limited in its ability to block legislation by statute, because they can only delay it once and if the Commons are still persistent they will send it again in the second term and it will skip the House of Lords and go straight to royal Assent. An example of this was when the Blair government wanted to reform the house of lords; they successfully passed stage one (brought hereditary peers to 92 from 777) and proceeded to stage two which was abolishment for the house of lords and creating a new second revising chamber, the House of lords said to the Blair government after they tried once but was vetoed, the lords said if they try again in the second term, the lords will veto every bill that comes through the house of lords.
Another important role for the House of Lords is to scrutinise the government Lords get the opportunity to question government ministers through letters, or in the Lords, one day a week is set aside for general debates and short debates take place (lasting one and a half hours). There are no votes on such debates. The House of Lords also check the work of government by scrutinising legislation in those debates, they can also scrutinise the government through permanent and temporary committees. However, the Lords have lost legitimacy, for instance the resignation of Lord Sewel over allegations that he took drugs in the presence of sex workers , or that the people who are being appointed has only happened because they donated a great sum to a certain party, (Ed Miliband express them as “doggy donors”). Some argue that the Lords fulfil a crucial role in the scrutiny of government and often their proposals are accepted such as their defeat of tax credit cuts and recently the Lords got the government to reconsider its position on 16 year olds being granted the vote in the upcoming EU referendum. The fact that the government did not agree to their amendment shows that it is fulfilling its role well as a scrutinising chamber which is its primary role and so reform is not needed.
The presence of 26 Church of England bishops seems strange in the 21st century but with the plethora of faith groups in the UK it could be argued that other religions be represented in Parliament or whether there is indeed any need for Lords Spiritual at all. The presence of 92 hereditary peers is also rare in Western democracies but perhaps it is these anachronisms that makes the HL “work”.
In the last Parliament it was very rigorous in its scrutiny knowing that the government's mandate was limited and so Salisbury applied to nothing! That is why some say "if it ain't broke don't fix it" but to come to a conclusion it is clear that the HL is in more need of reform than the HC. UK'S democratic credentials are seriously undermined by having an unelected second chamber. In USA Senate and House of Representatives are equal and although that has problems there is at least democratic legitimacy.
To conclude, there is little appetite for the much needed reform of the HL due to there being no consensus as to what the role and composition of any second chamber should be. Uni- cameral parliament has been suggested by Luton North MP, Kelvin Hopkins (Labour)