ETVT the House of Lords should be elected

T1 - Ability to scrutinise government, reform

Scrutiny could be improved by electing lords.

Lacks power, cannot block bills in commons, money bills and Salisbury convention remain unamended.

Only see success of minor amendments over major bills e.g. Amendments to Sunak Illegal Migration Bill (prevent LGBT seekers from being sent back) turned down as wanted bill to be deterrent.

Due to nature of unelected lords, unaccountable therefore limited power, compiled with strong majority of FPTP leads to elective dictatorship. Parl acts can be invoked to force bill through. Currently votes of lords do not matter e.g. Parl act invoked to force Sexual Offences Amendment Act 2000 (reduce homosexual consent to 16) despite lords overwhelmingly voting against.

Elected chamber would provide greater legitimacy so can act with greater influence. Ability to block bills would heighten ability to scrutinise.

T1 - Ability to scrutinise government, unchanged

Elected scrutiny may be less effective due to additional responsibilities that come with being elected.

HOL excels with expertise of members e.g. Lord Winston pioneer of IVF on Committee of science and tech. Forcing elections would replace with career politicians, expertise no longer prioritised would be lost.

Focus shifts from scrutiny to party loyalty, makes lords more partisan. Worries about next general election = less neutral scrutiny, politicised actions. Compared to current crossbencher majority, act more independent thus greater scrutiny.

If elected with FPTP, could lead to winner bonus majority as well. If same composition as commons, ineffective scrutiny as aligning views, if opposite composition to commons, overpowering scrutiny leads to gridlock, seen in US with gridlock when chambers are held by Republicans/Democrats.

Could also become worsened by being elected and thus like commons. Greater legitimacy of body would lead media focus, lead to theatre performance rather than dedication to scrutiny of legislation, similar to what seen in PMQs.

T1 - Ability to scrutinise government, overall

Elected lords threatens ability to scrutinise based on function of HOL as revising chamber. Parl acts necessary limit to scrutiny due to unelected nature but ultimately do not prevent scrutiny entirely e.g. Assisted Dying Bill killed. Scrutiny even if less powerful functions better and more consistently if unelected.

T2 - Membership, reform

Election of lords would lead to better representation given current unrepresentative nature.

86% white, 75% men, 70% privately educated, average age of 70. Unrepresentative of public (dem illegitimacy). E.g. Lord Carrington, hereditary (now life) peer 70 years but never votes. Better democratic representation of public would lead to more effective decision making.

Arguments it serves as retirement home for politicians, over 25% party politicians, other 20% is lawyers/bankers/journalists.

Partly this way due to maj appointments coming from PM list, outdated method. PM can override HOLAC advice, lead to controversial nominations / cronyism. E.g. Johnson made Lebedev made lord despite MI6 say potential security risk. Cruddas JAC rejection (£3M donations, paid for peerage), Johnson overruled.

Membership of lords with nature of appointment process makes ineffective at proper representation.

T2 - Membership, unchanged

Membership of lords allows maintenance of crucial balance; reforms have gone far enough to prevent persistent unrepresentativeness.

HoLA 1999 removed all but 92 hereditary peers, Hol(HP)A 2026 removed rest of them, prevent power based on lineage rather than merit. While still 22 (of 26) lords spiritual, only 3% of members therefore do not hinder membership significantly.

Although accusations of cronyism, vast maj of appointments uncontroversial, most life peers for achievements and specialist understanding they can offer. Some include:
Baroness Chakrabarti barrister and director of PG Liberty; General Sir Richard Dannatt former head of British Armed Forces; Norman Foster one of UK leading Architects

In its current state HOL maintains neutrality with unelected form, reforms have gone far enough therefore elected lords unnecessary.

T2 - Membership, overall

Better representation of HOL sacrifices expertise inherent to body that is necessary for primary function of revising chamber. Can focus time on function instead of being elected, better representation wasted on unnecessary constituency duties that leads to inferior function.