'The House of Lords is now more effective than the House of Commons in checking government power.' Discuss. (40)

The House of Commons and the House of Lords both check government power and together they form our dual chamber system. They both share the task of making and shaping laws and checking and challenging the work of the government but have different features which has led to debate as to which is the most effective. With the reforms to the House of Lords being a much discussed issue recently, debate as to which chamber is more effective has been heightened further.
The House of Lords are appointed based on their expertise. You could argue that this makes them more effective at checking government power because they each specialise in certain areas and posses large amounts of knowledge on certain aspects that would allow them to hold government to account. For example, one lord may be a former Prime Minister whilst one may specialise in business. This knowledge and expertise could be seen as making the House of Lords more well rounded and therefore more effective than the House of Commons in checking government power. This is because in the House of Commons they could be elected for reasons other than their expertise, for example, if a party holds a safe seat then the skill set of their MP might not even be taken into consideration by citizens who are just voting for the party.
However, some people may say that because 26 of the most senior bishops are in the House of Lords, that it reduces their effectiveness in checking government power. There is no reason they should be there; they have not been elected nor do they have any expertise in a relevant area. There is also a strong objection to their presence in the House from a large section of the public whereas all the members of the House of Commons have been democratically elected. Having said that,