A government blueprint for House of Lords reform is set for a bruising ride in both houses of parliament this week.

Peers begin the debate today and then MPs take up the cudgels on Thursday. The proposals to scrap hereditary peers and to limit the number of elected members of a second chamber to a fifth have triggered fierce debate and opposition among parliamentarians from all political parties.

A two month consultation period on the white paper which ends on January 31 has also provoked anger and many predict that the government - the cabinet is said to be split on the detail of the reforms - will climbdown over the proportion of elected representatives planned for the new look second chamber.

Launching the white paper to fierce criticism, leader of the House of Commons, Robin Cook, hinted that "having asked people to take part in the consultation, we should be willing to listen to the answers", indicating that compromise may be on the agenda and giving government opponents much to play for.

Last year, over 140 MPs signed an early day motion tabled by Fiona MacTaggart calling for a substantially elected Lords, and Reading MP Martin Salter predicted that the constitutional blueprint had "not a snowball's chance in Hell" of achieving parliamentary consensus.

House of Lords - "Completing the reform" - in brief

The government's proposals for a second stage of Lords reform concentrates on reforming the composition of the second chamber, scrapping hereditary peers, introducing a democratically elected element and breaking the linkage between a peerage and membership of the upper house.

Broadly speaking the powers of the Lords remain unchanged, with the jury out on whether the one proposed change, the end of a veto on secondary legislation, represents an enhancement or diminishment of the second chamber's powers.

Lord Wakeham's proposals to allow an independent appointments commission to decide the "identity" of all appointees have been ditched, with a veto now limited to the "propriety" of candidates.

Many of the proposals have been in consultation and the government itself has asked for views on significant issues such as the tenure of members and the number of elected representatives.

But to a certain extent the argument is regarded as over by the government, though heated negotiation will commence on the detail, the white paper takes a 10-year or longer transition timetable and is conclusively entitled "Completing the reform".

Labour constitutionalist and chair of the Commons public administration committee, Dr Tony Wright believes that while concessions can, and will, be wrested out of the government on the current proposals, more radical reform can be forgotten "for this political generation".

And an end-of-argument note was sounded by the blueprint's architect, Lord Irvine. "When we legislated in 1999 to remove most of the hereditary peers, we promised that we would complete the job of creating a modern and representative House of Lords suitable for the 21st century. The white paper fulfils that promise," he said.

A new composition to the second chamber

The House of Lords currently has over 700 peers, a number that would be capped at 600 10-years after legislation was enacted. Although the government accepts that the figure may rise as high as 750 during the transitional period.

Of the 600, bishops will be capped at 16, law lords at 12, 120 will be elected, 120 will be independently appointed by the appointments commission and the balance of not more than 332 nominated on a party political basis reflecting electoral share. With 587 existing life peers this may take some time.

The linkage between peerages and membership for the second chamber is to be scrapped, along with the remaining 92 hereditary peers, and future members will not receive the "Lord or Lady title". Equally, new peers, by birth or the honours list, will not become Lords members.

"This will free the award of a peerage to become wholly a mark of honour. Individuals may become, through separate routes, both peers and members of the House of Lords, but the two would cease to be intertwined," states the white paper.

Although the name of the new style Lords, appointed or elected, has yet to be decided - Lord Wakeham deputy, Gerald Kaufman favours the term "senator" - the white paper prosaically dubs them "Member of the Lords (ML)".

Tenure too for either appointees or the elected has not been decided and it is likely the two will be different. Elected representatives tenure will be "variable", linked, most probably, to the general election cycle for one or more parliaments with appointees on fixed terms of five, 10 or 15 years.

The preferred government option is to link Lords elections to the general election, with regional members identified through elections in multi-member constituencies identical to those used for selecting MEPs. And the electoral method will please some - PR - and dismay others - party lists.

"The electoral method will be one of regional lists. The European Parliament electoral system is also now proportional, again making it suitable for use for elections to a second chamber," states the white paper.

An elected house?

Critics of the reforms tend to focus on the proposals' current 80:20 appointed/elected membership composition with many believing the ratio should be reversed or appointees scrapped altogether.

The government rules an elected second house out in succinct terms. "The idea that the directly elected US Senate is the norm against which others should be judged is wrong".

And the white paper argues that: "Two wholly directly elected chambers within the Westminster system would be a recipe for gridlock and the government therefore joins the Royal Commission in rejecting this option."

Another issue for government is that re-election and the need "to seek regular party and electorate endorsement was likely to undermine the independence of the member".Moreover the proposals argue that an elected chamber "would be to risk losing the potential the Lords provides to bring to parliament the expertise and experience of those who are leaders in a wide range of national endeavours, including commerce, the voluntary sector, education, health, the armed forces and the faith communities".

"Such experience cannot replace or compete with a direct electoral mandate, but it makes a valuable addition to the expertise and competence of parliament as a whole. The larger the elected component, the greater will be the number chosen to represent each geographical unit and the greater, inevitably, will be the competition they pose to MPs in their representational role."

But its not all over for reform campaigners, the white paper also asks "is the overall balance right"? And Tony Wright believes under pressure the government may even concede a 33 appointed: 33 nominated: 33 elected ratio, giving "parity" to the chamber's composition.

"Independent" members have sparked less controversy than the majority of party political nominated members. The changes are billed as ending the prime ministers patronage and leaving Tony Blair with no more power than any other leader".

The PM will however retain a "discretionary right to appoint a small number of people - four or five a parliament - directly as ministers in the Lords".But rejection of Lord Wakeham's proposal that the commission should "have the final say over the identity of party nominations" is bound to lead to continued charges of cronyism.

The appointments commission will allocate appointments within the 20:60 independent and nominated ratio by doling out party places to reflect the electoral share at the preceding general election. The government's preferred minimum for one seat is 0.25 per cent of the vote, set at a threshold of five per cent.

Life peers

But the large number of remaining life peers, who will be entitled to stay until they leave, die or retire means the numbers will operate within the constraint of annual Lords turnover - 18 at present, 22 on a 15-year term and 33 on a 10-year term. Change will be slow and a reversal of Labour's 1997 landslide could see a Lords hostile to an incoming Conservative government with a large election mandate.

"Particularly if the shorter term were chosen, that gives a fair amount of flexibility in re-balancing following an election, bar all but the most seismic shifts which any system would struggle to accommodate," states the document.

In the meantime life peers, all 587 of them, will remain. In an incentive for some to leave the government will give a grant and, of course allow the individual to keep the honour of a peerage.

"Those who feel, for whatever reason, they can no longer make a full contribution can leave so as to vacate a seat for those who will be able to contribute more. This facility will be offered to life peers as well as other members. In such cases, they would of course retain their peerage. Members of the House of Commons receive a combination of winding-up allowance and resettlement grant when they retire or are not re-elected. The Government would welcome views on the possibility of a similar allowance of grant for peers who choose to resign or retire," states the white paper.

Lords, veto or delay?

The powers of the Lords, the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949, and conventions governing its relationship with the Commons are to remain broadly the same with "no changes to the legislative or conventional framework governing the relationship between the two houses".

The only change is to the Lords veto on secondary legislation with the government arguing that "such a crude power is inconsistent with the Lords' primary role as an advisory and revising chamber".

"It therefore proposes to accept the Royal Commission's recommendation that the House of Lords should be given a power to require the Commons to consider or reconsider statutory instruments, instead of their present power only to reject or pass them forthwith," states the paper.

The new delaying mechanism will last up to three months and "government and the House of Commons will have to consider the Lords' objections to the measure"."If, before the end of the period, the government decides it wishes to proceed with the instrument, and the Commons confirms its approval of that decision, the statutory instrument will become or remain law."