Is the UK Parliament unfit for purpose?

Some people may judge the UK Parliament unfit for purpose in terms of how representative it is. Representation is defined firstly by how well a body reflects the strata of it's population on the grounds of characteristics such as ethnicity and gender. It can also be discussed in relation to how well people's opinions are represented in Parliament. One feature of our current voting system, First Past the Post, is that there is one MP per constituency. This improves representativeness because MPs consequently have a larger sense of accountability to their constituents to represent their views. However, this system also allows for safe seats and parties winning on a minority of votes. For example, in 1997, Labour gained 43% of the General Election vote, which undermines their mandate by the people to enact their policies. In the same vein, in 2015, UKIP gained 12.6% but only gained one seat. This is why some believe that the Parliament is not fit for purpose, as the voting system favours the established two parties which makes it difficult for views to be articulated.
The House of Lords can also be seen as unfit for purpose in its representativeness because it is unelected, and includes 92 hereditary peers. This is because an unelected body cannot claim to be representative of the electorate's opinions as the electorate has no influence in deciding who is selected. Both chambers are today viewed as socially unrepresentative in terms of how accurately they mirror the demographic of the general population. The 2019 general election brought the most gender balanced Parliament on record, with 220 female MPs, however, this is still unrepresentative of society at large. Historically, this was due to the limited rights imposed on such groups, however, in modern society this shows that it is not fit for purpose because the population are not represented fairly.