Should the House of Lords be abolished?

The cost of the House of Lords has ballooned

Question: Should the House of Lords be abolished?
Position1 of 3›: The House of Lords should be abolished
Argument‹3 of 3: The cost of the House of Lords has ballooned

The cost of maintaining the House of Lords is increasingly unmanageable.

The argument

In recent years appointments to the House of Lords have ballooned making it one of the largest second chambers in the world. The only other countries in the world with second chambers larger are the People’s Republic of China, Kazakhstan and Burkina Faso – none of them are liberal democracies. Since 2000 the size of the House of Lords has increased by 27%, despite party leaders consistently promising to limit the number of peers they nominate. At the current rate of growth the House of Lords is expected to tally over 1,000 members by 2031. This is completely unsustainable with new peers costing the tax payer on average an additional quarter of a million pounds a year.

Premises

[P1]Appointments have ballooned, making the House of Lords one of the largest second chambers in the world, exceeded only by non-democracies like China, Kazakhstan, and Burkina Faso. [P2] Since 2000 the chamber has grown 27% despite repeated promises to limit peer nominations, and is projected to exceed 1,000 members by 2031. [P3] Each new peer costs taxpayers roughly a quarter of a million pounds a year, making this growth fiscally unsustainable. [C] Therefore, the ballooning cost and size of the House of Lords are grounds for abolishing it.

Counter-arguments

Rising cost and swelling numbers are arguments for reforming the House of Lords, not necessarily for abolishing it: the fiscal premise supports a cap on appointments, fixed terms, a retirement age or a smaller chamber just as readily as it supports having no second chamber at all, and none of those remedies requires losing the revising and scrutinising function the Lords performs. The headline comparison is misleading, too — ranking the Lords against China, Kazakhstan and Burkina Faso by nominal membership ignores that daily attendance and active participation are far below the total on the roll, and that those chambers differ so sharply in constitutional role that a raw headcount comparison carries little weight. The cost figure is likewise modest in national terms; roughly a quarter of a million pounds per active peer, set against the value of a functioning revising chamber, is an argument for restraint in nominations rather than for demolition. In short, the premises identify a problem of size and appointment discipline, which cap-and-reform proposals address directly, and they do not reach the further conclusion that the institution itself should be abolished.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Comparing the Lords to China or Kazakhstan by nominal headcount is misleading — active attendance is far below the roll and those chambers differ constitutionally — so raw size is a weak basis for abolition. [Rejecting P3] Ballooning cost and numbers argue for capping appointments, fixed terms or a smaller chamber as readily as for abolition; the fiscal premise targets the size of the House, not the existence of a revising second chamber.