Challenging a Claim: House of Lords Reform

I take an AS level subject called Critical Thinking which is basically about writing arguments.  Last week, the homework was to write an argument against a claim of my choice, and I got 12/12 !  I decided to use what I've learned in Politics to support my argument - and I've decided to share it with you as a 'sorry' for not updating last week - I've been really busy with Ten Tors training (walked 49 miles at the weekend!) - though I know that's no excuse.

Challenging the Assertion: "The House of Lords should have further reforms"

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9314627/Dont-empty-the-Lords-of-its-scientists.html

After the 2001 election, many changes were made to the House of Lords including reducing the number of hereditary peers to 92 from 750, and introducing appointed peers.  Many people argue that these reforms did not go far enough as an elected second chamber would grant further legitimacy and the public would be able to hold them account for their own actions.  

However, further reform would create an overly politicised House of Lords as peers would have to toe the Party Line when elected according to their parties, and may not challenge the Commons so effectively.  Moreover, radically changing the House of Lords may cause a huge number of traditions to be lost and, besides, the House of Lords is very effective in scrutinising legislation as it is.  In the Parliamentary session between 1999 and 2000, over 10,000 amendments were made to government legislation.  Also, the 92 hereditary peers bring a huge amount of life experience and business accumen which gives them a good reason to have a place in the Lords.  So, if peers in the Lords were elected - as proposed - then the Lords would lose any sense of neutrality that it may currently have.  

Proposals for House of Lord elections should be dropped as an elected House would have equal legitimacy to the Commons and therefore could create an adversary system which could prevent any laws being passed.  Moreover, in 2012 it was proposed that 80% of the Lords be elected by PR (proportional representation), and this was widely disagreed with and shelved.  Statistics from the Office of the Chief Whip (I made this statistic up!  Don't sue me...) show that 73% of MPs voted against this legislation.  And, if our politicians - who we elect to represent us - voted against it, then it is more likely that there are huge problems with reform; especially as politicians should be better informed on political issues than everyday people.  We should trust our politicians' judgement.  Therefore, it should be accepted that the House of Lords does not need any further reform.