There are many arguments for the continuation hereditary peers rights in the House of Lords.
It could be seen that the Lords were appointed to preserve Britain. They were in place to insure the continuance of the historical institutions and cultures. The reason for the hereditary peers having this preservative nature is the fact that they represent their families' long line of service to their country. The hereditary peers would not allow massive change to British refinement, as they are a largely conservative group. They were in place to ensure that no impulsive laws were passed and no short-term political legislation put in place. The Lords would always put up stiff opposition to any dramatic changes to British life; this guarantees that laws passed were always carefully considerate of British people's wants.
The hereditary Lords also represented the minority of the countryside, as this was largely where the Lords were from, due to inheritance of rural acreage. Although the countryside may be a minority they are a powerful community and representation in the Lords made up for their sometimes-apparent lack of representation in the Commons.
The continuation of hereditary peerage would remove the often-scandalous issue of the appointing of life peers. Life peers could be seen as political payoffs by the government of the day. This sort of appointment may give the government of the time a short-term benefit, but it's no way to appoint life-long members of our parliament system.
There are also many arguments for the following through of the plan to completely abolish hereditary peerage.
From a Labour sympathetic political stance it is easy to see why they want to abolish hereditary peers. Any time the Tories want their specific view made apparent and a majority in the Lords, they can wheel in (in some cases literally) large amounts of conservative peers who have little to no actual political interest in the matter. Effectively un-elected British citizens have power over the democratically elected government of the day. Therefor, whatever the election result, the conservatives always have the power to block Labour policy, even if they are not backed by the nation. This is not democratic.
One could also see the appointment of politically powerful positions by birth as, not only old-fashioned and reminiscent of the French ancién regime, but also morally wrong and unfair. Equality is one of the founding morals in our modern society and if the political system does not reflect this, why should anyone else stand for equality?
The appointment of life peers also allows the government to fill the Lords with specialists of all natures. If a life peer can offer an opinion formulated from years of experience in their specific field, it is much more likely it will be well informed, than a random hereditary peer with no real professional expertise.
There is also a common prejudice of people against hereditary peers. They are seen by many people as people born with silver spoons in their mouths and not much in their heads. Although this is a harsh generalisation, some hereditary peers do tend to fit the description snugly. This sort of distrust from one tier of our political system to the other cannot be healthy for our political system and so obviously needed reform.
The Wakeham commission made several recommendations on the second stage of the House of Lords reform (whether they will be put in place we are yet to see, but the outlook is doubtful after initial response to the 'white paper').
Around 20% of the membership would be made up of independent cross benchers, and existing life peers would stay on to ensure a smooth change over to the new arrangements. Most members of the reformed chamber would remain appointed by an independent commission. The political balance of the second chamber should reflect votes cast at the general election. A totally independent appointments system, in which the prime minister and government would play no part. A statutory minimum of 30% women members, fair representation for ethnic minority groups, and a broader range of religious representation than at present; Increased powers to scrutinise the executive and challenge government legislation.
