The House of Lords works well

The argument

Proponents of leaving the House of Lords untouched argue that the chamber should be judged by what it does rather than by how it is composed, and that on its own terms it works. Its role is not to originate policy but to scrutinise and revise the legislation sent up by the Government: reading bills closely, exposing drafting that will not survive contact with the courts or the public, and returning amendments for reconsideration. That work continues, on this view, despite much criticism of the institution, and criticism of the chamber's composition is not the same as evidence that its output is poor. The features most often attacked are, on this argument, the source of that performance. The bulk of its members are appointed for life, which means they do not have to seek regular re-election. A member who need not be reselected by a party or returned by an electorate is not obliged to spend a large part of the parliamentary cycle campaigning, and can spend it instead reading and debating legislation; nor is such a member beholden to one particular party leader for a future career. Sitting independently, outside the pressures of narrow party politics, peers can accordingly take a position on a bill that a whip would not permit in an elected chamber. Independence and time, proponents argue, are precisely what a revising chamber requires. The political make-up of the Lords adds a further check. Because its current composition denies the Government a majority, the chamber has the numbers to amend legislation and, where necessary, to defeat it. That makes it in some senses the real opposition: a body able to force a government with a secure majority elsewhere to rethink its approach rather than merely to register objections. A chamber that performs the scrutinising role this effectively, on this view, should remain untouched.

Premises

Counter-arguments

The lack of democratic accountability in the House of Lords undermines its legitimacy and the UK's credibility as a whole. It gives outsiders the impression that cronyism and nepotism remain a large part of British society. Despite the Government not having a majority, peers in the House of Lords fear its eventual abolition and often will only oppose or revise government legislation to the extent that it may cause minor irritation but not a serious obstacle. The lack of democratic legitimacy has allowed previous governments to introduce legislation to curtail the power of the Lords, ensuring that it cannot operate with the same power of an elected upper chamber.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] The House of Lords curtains democracy rather than advancing it.