Should the House of Lords be abolished?

The House of Lords is a chamber of experts

Question: Should the House of Lords be abolished?
Position‹2 of 3›: The House of Lords should remain untouched
Argument‹2 of 2: 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.

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.

Premises

[P1]The Lords scrutinises government legislation with a membership drawn predominantly from experts, letting it properly assess the technical merits of different bills. [P2] Peers come from accomplished backgrounds—law, business and commerce, the military, the religious community—offering experience from many walks of life, unlike the increasingly career-political Commons. [C] Therefore, because it is a chamber of experts, the House of Lords should remain untouched.

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. The House of Lords also continues to be home to ninety-two hereditary peers who owe their seats purely to their birth.

Rejecting the premises

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