Opponents of the first option said that this would perpetuate the dominance of the government and do little to persuade the public that the Lords had aneffective role to play.

Supporters of the second option said that an elected Lords would be empowered to scrutinise government and legislation. But critics, including Tony Blair, said it would create a political force to rival the primacy of the Commons and slow down effective law-making.

ELECTED, APPOINTED OR BORN INTO IT?

Labour completed the first stage of reform in November 1999 when all but 92 of the 750 hereditary peers lost their right to sit and vote in the chamber.

Those who remained were chosen through a ballot of other Lords - something that critics dubbed a beauty contest - though a further 10 were given life peerages by the prime minister.

Labour said at the time that reform would not stop there. But now, as the party seeks a second term in office, it has yet to put forward clear proposals on what might happen next.

The question facing the government has been - how to make the Lords more effective, without making it too powerful?

A directly-elected second chamber would be more democratic. It is supported by both Lord Rodgers, the Liberal Democrat leader in the second chamber, and Lord Strathclyde, the Conservative leader. Campaigners say public opinion is also on their side.

In opposition, Mr Blair had said Labour always favoured an elected House of Lords. But in government he has shown little enthusiasm for the option.

Margaret Beckett, leader of the Commons, argues that two elected chambers would each claim equal legitimacy and could end up being perpetually at war.

ROYAL COMMISSION

A Royal Commission into reform of the Lords, chaired by the Conservative peer, Lord Wakeham, spent a year looking at blueprints for reform.

It proposed a compromise: The House should have 550 peers with a minority directly elected.

The majority of peers would be appointed by an independent Commission and at least 30% of appointed members should be women with similar safeguards to ensure representation of ethnic minorities.

The commission failed to agree on exactly how elected members would be picked. Instead it suggested three options for further discussion.

The commission did recommend, however, that the prime minister should lose the power to appoint peers, suggesting that the second chamber's composition should be regularly adjusted in proportion to votes cast at the previous general election.

Charter 88 dismissed the report as a "dismal" establishment stitch-up and said it had completely missed the wider issue of strengthening the powers of the second chamber to check the government.

Critics also said the Royal Commission's conclusions had been so weak they had even ducked the issue of the name of the chamber.

WHERE NOW?

Critics predict that Labour will not bring forward reforms to make the House of Lords more independent - but the party says it is pledged to pursue stage two of the plan.

An appointments commission was established last May. However, it can appoint only a minority of peers, the generally independent cross-benchers.

Critics go on to say that Labour did not want to set up the Royal Commission in the first place, but felt that it was obliged to do so.

The Conservatives have predicted that Labour will try to make sure that the second stage of reform never happens.

But the Tories do appear to have accepted that the era of the hereditary peer has gone - and they have pledged to establish an independent appointments commission plus a "substantial elected element".

Other Lords on all sides are increasingly convinced that the present "transitional" House may continue for a further decade unless Labour returns to government after the general election with a clear timetable.

Indeed a joint committee of MPs and peers to scrutinise the Wakeham recommendations has still not been set up.

This is despite a statement last summer from Lady Jay, leader of the Lords, that it would be established "as soon as possible".

The delay is partly due to cross-party disagreement over the remit of the committee.

Labour said it wanted the committee to consider the second chamber's role and powers but not its composition and method of election - something that the opposition parties refused to accept.

Last September, Labour did agree to elect a minority of at least 65 peers.

This is likely to outrage Conservatives, who would see the proposal leading to the final demise of the hereditary members.