Should the House of Lords be abolished?

Encyclopedia of Opinion

Question: Should the House of Lords be abolished?
Position‹3 of 3: The House of Lords should be reformed
Argument1 of 3›: Hereditary peers should be abolished

Hereditary peers are a leftover from Aristocracy that do not benefit British society.

The argument

Proponents of reform rather than abolition argue that the case against the House of Lords is really a case against a particular part of it, and that the part in question can be identified precisely. Ninety-two of its members are hereditary peers, holding their seats through birthright alone: they were neither elected nor appointed, and nothing about their presence in the chamber follows from anything they have done. Reform, on this view, should start there. The first objection is one of legitimacy. So long as seats in a legislative chamber descend by birth, the arrangement engenders the view that the United Kingdom still has an aristocracy that is born to rule, and that this aristocracy continues to exert influence over British politics. The damage is not confined to the hereditary peers themselves: the presence of inherited seats colours perceptions of the whole chamber, and an institution widely read as a survival of aristocratic privilege is poorly placed to justify the influence it holds. Abolishing hereditary peers is therefore presented as the change that does most to alter how the second chamber is understood. Two further consequences are said to follow. Removing the hereditary element would reduce the size of the second chamber, and with it the cost of running it. It would also change the basis on which membership is held: with birthright removed, every remaining route into the Lords runs through appointment, so peers would be there on merit rather than by descent. That is where reformers part company with those who would abolish the chamber outright. The complaint is not that a second chamber is objectionable in itself, but that its composition cannot be defended while part of it is inherited. Correct the composition, beginning with the ninety-two, and the institution can be retained on grounds that do not depend on birth.

Premises

[P1]The House of Lords contains ninety-two hereditary peers who inherited their seats by birthright alone, sustaining the impression of an aristocracy born to rule and exerting influence over British politics. [P2] Abolishing hereditary peers would reduce the chamber's size and cost while ensuring members are appointed on merit. [C] Therefore the House of Lords should be reformed, beginning with the abolition of hereditary peers.

Counter-arguments

Despite inheriting their seats in the House of Lords, the ninety-two hereditary peers bring a wealth of knowledge and expertise to Parliament, particularly when it comes to land management and agriculture.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The hereditary peers in the House of Lords bring knowledge and expertise to the House, which benefits the whole country.