Law effectiveness of the House of Lords' work caused popular criticism in

the UK. Is the House of Lords as a second chamber necessary, in Your opinion?

Every government needs a second, revising chamber to act as a check on

what it is doing, and the Lords do a genuinely excellent job of scrutinizing Bills,
picking out the bits that really need improvement, and sending the Bills back to the
Commons for adjustment and correction. The standard of debate among the Lords
is extremely high, and I believe they are much better behaved and more courteous
than the Commons.
Note that the House of Lords only has an advisory role. It “rejects” the
decision of the House of Commons only by convention, it has no right of veto over
Commons decisions. The House of Commons, has all the power of the UK’s
parliament. It could reform or scrap the house of Lords as it wishes.
People of the UK have been saying for over a century that the House of
Lords needs to be gone, and that it's a total anachronism.
From my standpoint, it is unlikely that the British Parliament will ever
become unicameral since the benefits of having a second chamber are widely
recognized in countries of the size of the United Kingdom. So, whereas abolishing
the second chamber is not an option under consideration, replacing the House of
Lords with a different type of Upper House could be.
The reason why it has not been done is that there has never been an
agreement on what to replace the House of Lords with which would be acceptable
to all major political parties in Parliament.
I would say there’s certainly scope for reforming the House of Lords to
include directly elected members. But until those reforms are agreed, the current
functions and membership should continue.