No end in sight for this tale of timidity, muddle and messy compromise

While they were in opposition, Labour MPs used to fall into two categories when it came to reform of the House of Lords. Half wanted to abolish the Lords, and the other half spent their careers trying to get into the Lords. Even last Thursday, 63 backbenchers, led by George Howarth and Dennis Skinner, tabled a motion calling for the establishment of a "unicameral solution coupled with reform of the House of Commons legislative procedures".

But abolition is the one option that will not be considered when both Houses debate, later today, seven alternatives proposed by the Joint Committee on Lords Reform. It is hard to believe that on this issue the Government has not yet even achieved the removal of all the hereditary peers, to which it was committed in its 1997 manifesto. The story has been one of timidity and muddle.

After the messy compromise that arose from Viscount Cranborne's deal to secure a stay of execution for 92 hereditary peers, we had a Royal Commission under the chairmanship of Lord Wakeham. This recommended a predominantly nominated Upper House with a minority of elected peers. "We have given our support to the report and conclusions of the Wakeham Commission, and will seek to implement them in the most effective way possible," trumpeted the 2001 Labour manifesto.

The "most effective way" turned out to be the dustbin. After the Government produced a White Paper based on the Wakeham proposals, Lord Irvine, the Lord Chancellor, finally acknowledged, on 7 January, that "all bets are off... the White Paper did not command acceptance". And so Robin Cook, the Leader of the House, proposed the establishment of the joint committee of both Houses consisting of 12 peers and 12 MPs, under the chairmanship of Jack Cunningham, the former cabinet minister, whose report forms the basis of today's debates.

Underlying this report, however, is the view that there should be no change in the current role and functions of scrutiny, leading occasionally to amendments to legislation. The retention of the current conventions, which are of a self-restraining nature, that the Commons "shall finally have its way and that the Government is entitled to have its business considered without undue delay" are restated in the report with no recommendations to give new or additional powers to the Lords.

Today's debates will, therefore, focus primarily on the size and composition of the Lords. The joint committee considers each of its seven alternative methods according to the tests of legitimacy, representativeness, no domination by any one party, independence and expertise. Clearly, a wholly elected House passes the test of legitimacy – although a caveat is offered on the question of electoral turnout. If yet another series of elections simply results in the abysmal turnout achieved in local and European elections, even the test of legitimacy could be challenged. Certainly, a wholly elected House, even with a long, one-term limit of 12 years or so, would result in mostly party nominees with reduced prospects for true independents. And there is even the risk of maverick, Hartlepool-style monkeys being elected on dreadful turnouts – driving a coach and horses through the "legitimacy" argument.

So the original clean and tidy arguments, based on the principle of democratic accountability, are leading even some of their proponents to a series of second thoughts. With enough criticism already of the party apparatchiks dominating the Commons, there is certainly little appetite, at least among their Lordships, for a wholly elected second chamber.

They are more likely to be swayed by the arguments for expertise and independence that militate against election and in favour of choice by a new appointments commission established on a statutory basis. A fully appointed House would, of course, most closely resemble the existing House of Lords, save for the removal of the remaining hereditary element. Many in the Lords, including many Tories, will vote against a fully elected House.

This poses considerable embarrassment for the formally stated position of the Conservative front bench in the Commons, which has, in recent years, sought the high moral ground of the democratic principle, calling for "a substantial elected element" (80 per cent) to enable it to outflank the Government. But it is doubtful whether the Tory front bench in the Commons, let alone in the Lords, will necessarily speak with a collective voice. And there are many backbenchers, led by Sir Patrick Cormack, who do not share the views of their frontbench colleagues.

The Labour front bench now also shows little appetite for elections because it believes this could result in the new-found legitimacy of a reformed Lords challenging the will of the Commons – notwithstanding the joint committee's desire to maintain the existing "self-restraining conventions". But there does not even appear to be a collective view within the Government. Lord Irvine and probably the Prime Minister certainly appear to be against a high proportion of elected peers. Mr Cook is probably more on the side of some elected but has publicly admitted that there is no cabinet agreement – hence his acknowledgement that there will be a genuine free vote for all Labour MPs. As Lord Irvine said: "The Government has arrived at no views yet... some genius is going to have to make sense of the votes."

Making sense of the votes will be the next challenge to Mr Cunningham and his committee colleagues. In between the two alternatives of election and appointment, they offer five other options for today's debates: 80 per cent appointed with 20 per cent elected – or vice versa; 60 per cent appointed with 40 per cent elected – or vice versa; and 50 per cent appointed with 50 per cent elected.

Recognising the possibility of different answers from each debate in each House, the joint committee has suggested that there should be no vote tonight so that MPs and Lords can study the debates in each other's chambers. So the divisions will be held over until next Tuesday, with both Houses following the same procedure in voting on options. But it is at this point that the real nightmare for Mr Cunningham begins. He is then expected to take the two votes – which are bound to be contradictory – and "establish how the respective views of each House might be brought closer together if they differ". By the end of the year some compromise is supposed to be forged to enable the Government to form the basis of legislation.

It is unlikely that this will be in time for the Queen's Speech in November, so we would be into the final session in the run-up to the next election. There is no way that any government would then want such a messy distraction. So reform of the House of Lords looks like joining the euro and the abolition of hunting and is set to be heading for the Government's favourite destination: the long grass.

mrbrown@pimlico.freeserve.co.uk