Lords reform in disarray after Irvine says 'all bets are off'

Reform of the House of Lords was in disarray yesterday after the Lord Chancellor warned that many MPs and peers had rejected the "nonsense" of a partly-elected second chamber.

Lord Irvine said "all bets" were off just weeks before a Parliamentary debate on seven options for Lords reform, and warned the real argument was between an all-elected and wholly-appointed house.

But he was immediately contradicted by Robin Cook, the Leader of the Commons, who insisted he favoured a "mixed" House of Lords.

MPs and Peers will vote later this month on seven options, ranging from a all-elected or all-appointed house to five options based on a mix of appointed and elected peers.

Reformers hope to secure a mainly-elected House of Lords, by establishing a "centre of gravity" in favour of reform with about 60 per cent of its members chosen at the polls.

But they accused the Lord Chancellor of attempts to torpedo efforts to secure a consensus by encouraging MPs to back an all-elected chamber and pushing peers to support an all-appointed house.

Lord Irvine insisted he still backed the Government's original proposal for a 20 per cent elected House of Lords, which was comprehensively rejected by Labour backbenchers.

But he told the BBC: "The real argument I think you will find, when we have our debate on the 21st and 22nd of January, is polarising around whether there should be an all-appointed or an all-elected house.

"Many, many voices are speaking out against what they call the nonsense of hybridity; how can you have some who are elected, who will claim greater legitimacy than those who are appointed and will therefore want to be paid in the same way as members of Parliament?"

He warned that the issue was "one of the most difficult" to have faced politics for well over 100 years and claimed it would take a "genius" to resolve the conflicting view.

Mr Cook warned: "What I am very keen on is that we do make progress. I do not want to end up in the situation where we have been so often in the past in which there is no reform because those who want reform cannot agree on [the type]."

Graham Allen, a former Government whip and vociferous supporter of reform, said: "I hope ... Lord Irvine isn't muddying the water either on his own behalf or on behalf of the Government and Number 10.

Karen Bartlett, director of the pro-reform pressure group, Charter 88, said Lord Irvine's statement was designed "to stop people voting for an all-elected chamber."

Liberal Democrat peer Lord Oakeshott, a member of the joint committee on Lords reform, said Lord Irvine had "thrown a spanner" in the works without saying what option he preferred.

Former Chancellor Kenneth Clarke, another member of the joint committee and a supporter of an all-elected chamber, said the final reform would represent a "drastic" change. But he warned: "Once you get into these complicated issues which arouse quite strong views among sections of the public, this Government does very easily go back into indecision and delay."