argument top image

< Back to question Should the House of Lords be abolished? Show more Show less

The role of the British Parliament’s second unelected chamber has been debated for a century to no avail. Despite minor reform in the late 1990s, the future of the House of Lords remains ambiguous at best. So what is the purpose of the House of Lords? Should it be left untouched, reformed, or ultimately abolished?

The House of Lords should remain untouched Show more Show less

The House of Lords is an institution that benefits British democracy.
< (2 of 3) Next position >

The House of Lords is a chamber of experts

The people in the House of Lords have a variety of expertise which make it a unique and beneficial institution.
< (2 of 2) Next argument >

The Argument

The House of Lords continues to perform an important role scrutinising government legislation. It's membership, predominately experts, ensures that it can properly assess the technical merits of different pieces of legislation. Peers come from a variety of accomplished backgrounds including the legal professions, business and commerce, the military, and the religious community, offering a variety of experience from all walks of life. This differs from the House of Commons that increasingly has become dominated by a political class.

Counter arguments

Claims that the House of Lords is made up of experts are overstated. In the current House of Lords at least 27% of peers come from a political background as either former Members of Parliament or party donors.[1] The House of Lords also continues to be home to ninety-two hereditary peers who owe their seats purely to their birth.


[P1] The members of the House of Lords have unique areas of expertise. [P2] This expertise benefits the country.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The House of Lords members do not have particularly strong areas of expertise.



This page was last edited on Monday, 9 Mar 2020 at 15:24 UTC


Not sure yet? Read more before voting ↑

Explore related arguments