The latest attempt to reform the Lords was thrown into doubt last night as MPs attacked the method chosen to break the decades-long deadlock and peers prepared to block whatever solution emerges from the Commons.

Jack Straw’s plan for a half-elected, half-appointed second chamber was unveiled to a chorus of predictable disapproval in both Houses as traditionalists opposed any change and the Conservatives accused him of entrenching “cronyism”.

But ministers were hopeful that Mr Straw’s plan for a “hybrid” second chamber — of members no longer called peers in a chamber no longer called the Lords — would eventually succeed. They accepted that that could mean forcing it through using the Parliament Act, or making it a manifesto commitment at the next election, which Gordon Brown is believed to be ready to do.

The Chancellor is also understood to believe that more radical plans, such as a fully elected second chamber, could only be pushed through if they were a specific manifesto pledge.

Expert View

An appointed House will remain a limited, revising chamber, and an elected one is bound to become more assertive

Peter Riddell

• More

• Post a comment

The first hurdle comes at the end of this month, probably February 27, when Mr Straw will try to persuade the Commons to change its voting procedures to get a decision on the second chamber.

MPs will be asked for the first time to adopt a preferential system of voting under which they would rank in order the seven options, ranging from a fully elected to a fully nominated House. That would produce a result; previous attempts have failed with all options defeated.

Most Conservatives and some Labour MPs will vote against the “paving motion” changing the voting rules, and ministers may have to rely on Liberal Democrats to get it through. A week or so later there will be a two-day debate at which a favoured option should emerge.

Tony Blair announced that he had changed his mind on the issue. Four years ago he backed a fully appointed House but he will now support a hybrid House as proposed by Mr Straw.

He wants a 50-50 split, with 30 per cent nominated by the parties, and 20 per cent appointed as cross-benchers.

The Commons leader said that his plans were the best opportunity to reform the Lords for decades; they would increase the legitimacy of the Lords and “strengthen democracy”.

The number of peers would be cut from 746 to 540, but the Church of England bishops would stay. Elected peers would use the same regional constituencies as in European elections and be chosen from party lists, but voters could list candidates in a preferred order.

A third of seats would be elected every five years, with members elected for 15 years.

The historic link between peerages and a seat in Parliament would end: peerages would not confer an automatic right to sit in the second chamber. Mr Straw said the status quo was no longer an option.

Theresa May, the Shadow Leader of the Commons, said that, far from eliminating crony-ism, Mr Straw’s proposals would perpetuate it.

Simon Hughes, the Liberal Democrat spokesman, said that at least 80 per cent of peers should be elected.

Mr Straw’s plans were attacked by several Labour MPs who demanded a free vote on whether to approve the preferential ballot on composition, and from a succession of Conservatives against the whole policy.

In the Lords, a statement on the plans was heard in onimous silence, followed by hints that peers will block the proposals.

What should happen next

- MPs will have three votes on four motions. If all succeed, there will be another debate a week later, then a ballot with seven options on the new composition

- This final vote is key. The proposed ballot would let MPs rank their preferences, from a wholly-appointed chamber to the government plan of electing half and appointing the other half or a wholly appointed House

- MPs, including ministers, will have a free vote

- In theory, each MP would rank preferences from 1 to 7. Unless one got a majority, the option with least first-choice votes would be eliminated. The second preferences of its supporters it would be redistributed. That would be repeated until one option had 50 per cent of the votes

Times Recommends

• Margot Fonteyn: In her footsteps
• Forget beautiful people, let's have wonky Brits
• Fundamentalist brew: faith and power