For almost a century, governments in the United Kingdom have attempted to find a way to undertake a comprehensive reform of the House of Lords, which is the upper house of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. When the Labour Party came to power in the 1997 general election, it had in its manifesto the promise to reform the House of Lords:
In 2001 the government undertook a public consultation. This helped to create an unprecedented public debate on the issue of Lords reform, with 1101 consultation responses and numerous debates in Parliament and the media. Despite this huge level of interest in the issue, and a second public consultation, no consensus on the way forward has yet emerged.

History of reform
For details see: Lords Reform - History

Reform before 1997
Originally, the two Houses of Parliament had equal legislative powers. The agreement of both was necessary before a bill could be submitted to the Monarch for royal assent, which if granted made the bill an Act of Parliament. After the English Restoration, a constitutional convention arose that the House of Lords would defer to the House of Commons on measures to raise and spend money. The Parliament Act 1911 divided Bills into three classes.
Together with the Parliament Act 1949, these two acts enable the Commons (in exceptional circumstance) to pass legislation without approval from the Lords but subject to certain time delays. In effect, they give the House of Lords the power to delay legislation but not to prevent it. Since 1911 there have been various attempts to reform the Lords, but none tackled the powers of the House except the Parliament Act 1949 which reduced the suspensory veto to two sessions and one year. By the time of the 1997 general election there was still no consensus on comprehensive reform of the upper chamber of Parliaments.

Money bills which, failing consent from the Lords within one month, could receive royal assent without it.
Other bills on which the House of Lords could exercise a suspensory veto.
On any bill extending the maximum term of the House of Commons beyond five years, the House of Lords retained equal legislative powers. Powers as of 1997 Election
In 1999, the Government completed a deal with the Lords to remove most of the hereditary Peers and passed the House of Lords Act 1999 leaving amongst the majority of appointed Peers a rump of 92 Hereditary Peers until the second phase of reform was complete. These 92 were elected from within those who had had a right to be members of the House of Lords as a result of their hereditary status. This arrangement was intended to be purely temporary until "the second stage of reform was completed". This led to some claims (perhaps not all serious) that the elected Hereditary Lords were the only democratic members of the House.

Reform process since 1997
In 1999 a Royal Commission was appointed, under Baron Wakeham, to examine proposals for Lords Reform and make recommendations. It published its report (See Wakeham Report But in a written reply on 6 March the Government stated there was little prospect of a Joint Committee being established in the present Parliament due to a failure of cross-party discussions. On 26 April 2001 the Queen confirmed her intention to create 15 new non party-political members of the House of Lords termed "People's Peers". In the May 2001 general election, all three main parties included statements on House of Lords reform in their manifestos.

It should have around 550 members of which 67, 87 or 195 should be elected.
There should be an independent Appointments Commission responsible for all appointments.
The new second chamber should have the capacity to offer counsel from a range of sources. It should be broadly representative of society in the United Kingdom at the beginning of the 21st century. It should work with the House of Commons to provide an effective check upon the Government. It should give the United Kingdom's constituent nations and regions, for the first time, a formally constituted voice in the Westminster Parliament.
The Commons should be the principal political forum, should have the final say in respect of all major public policy issues, including those expressed in the form of proposed legislation. The second chamber should have sufficient power, and the associated authority, to require the Government and the House of Commons to reconsider proposed legislation and take account of any cogent objections to it.
The House of Lords should contain a substantial proportion of people who are not professional politicians, who have continuing experience in a range of different walks of life and who can bring a broad range of expertise to bear on issues of public concern. and representation of the reformed second chamber should match that of the country as expressed in votes cast at the most recent general election but it should not be capable of being dominated by any one political party and continue to include people who can help it to maintain a philosophical, moral or spiritual perspective on public policy issues.
Possession of a peerage should no longer be a necessary qualification for membership
Provisions should be in place to permit ministers to be drawn from the Upper House
The upper House should ensure changes to constitution are not made without full and open debate and that there is increased scrutiny of secondary legislation
The commission could not recommend: a wholly or largely directly elected second chamber; indirect election from the devolved institutions (or local government electoral colleges) or from among British MEPs; random selection, or co-option. Royal Commission
On 7 November 2001, the government launched a white paper and consultation stating:
In the white paper, although the government said it "strongly endorsed" the Royal Commission's views, it listed its own proposals:

The remaining 92 Hereditary Peers were to be removed, the number capped after 10 years at 600 and 120 members to be elected to represent the nations and the regions.
It was to include a significant minority of independent members; Its political membership should be broadly representative of the main parties' relative voting strengths as reflected in the previous General Election; Membership was to be separated from the peerage which would continue as a honour; There should be increased representation of women and those from ethnic minority backgrounds;No group in society should in future have privileged hereditary access to the House; *The House of Lords would remain subject to the pre-eminence of the House of Commons in discharging its functions; Its principal function should continue to be to consider and revise legislation; to scrutinise the executive; and to debate and report on public issues;
The statutory Appointments Commission would manage the balance and size of the House appoint the independent members, and to assure the integrity of those nominated by political parties.
The overall balance between, elected, nominated and ex officio members, and the balance between political and independent members;
Whether elections to the Lords should be linked to General Elections, those for the European Parliament, or over time linked to those from devolved and regional bodies within the UK;
The length of term for elected members;
The term of appointment;
What grounds should lead to statutory expulsion from the House;
Should there be a change from an expenses-based system of remuneration. White paper and first consultation
On 11 December 2002 the Joint Committee published its first report On 4 February 2003, the Commons and House of Lords voted on the seven options proposed by the joint committee and the Commons also voted on an amendment to abolish the upper House completely:
After this series of votes where the Commons failed to back a single option and the Lords only a fully appointed House, Robin Cook the leader of the Commons said:
With widely differing views in the Joint Committee, its report on 9 May 2003 effectively passed the initiative back to the Government. But nine members of the Joint Committee issued a statement coinciding with the publication which stated:
Creation of Department for Constitutional Affairs In June 2003, Tony Blair announced the creation of a new department to oversee constitutional change with Lord Falconer as its first Secretary of State. The department was tasked with:
When in 2003 Lord Falconer signalled the governments preference for an all appointed House of Lords, three members of the Liberal Democrats issued a statement:
Ministers responded saying

Establishment of an independent Judicial Appointments Commission.
Creation of a new Supreme Court to replace the existing system of Law Lords operating as a committee of the House of Lords.
Reform of the Speakership of the House of Lords.
New arrangements for the conduct of Scottish and Welsh business. Votes of February 2003
In September 2003, the Department of Constitutional Affairs issued Constitutional Reform: Next Steps for the House of Lords, which gave as its main proposals:
The paper also started a second consultation, on the Appointments Commission for the House of Lords requesting submissions on how the Appointments Commission itself would be appointed, even though no other alternatives to an appointed Commission had been considered. Reaction to the paper was hostile: for example, Lord Goodhart, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson on Constitutional Affairs, said "the overwhelming reaction I have is a feeling of contempt and betrayal." that the government would not proceed with legislation to enact the proposals in the consultation. Although this suggested a lack of support for their proposals from the consultation, when the statistical analysis was published on 22 April 2004 the report stated that on the main issue (2a):
With such an apparently high level of support, it is unclear why the government choose not to proceed. The only insight available is unofficial reports putting the actual level of support at closer to third.
Moreover, as the government published most of the responses to both consultations, it is possible to see that many of these responses were highly critical of both the Government's proposal and the consultation process; some even went on to complain that the UK government breached its own code of conduct for consultations by failing to mention many of the new ideas arising from both consultations.
In the 2005 general election, all three parties included statements on reform of the House of Lords in their manifestos with the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats promising "substantially"/"predominantly" elected Chambers. In December 2005, the Constitution Unit, part of the University College of London's School of Public Policy, released research findings showing "surprising levels of support from MPs and the public for the Lords to vote down government proposals":

A fully Appointed House of Lords
Removal of the remaining 92 Hereditary Peers
Establishment of a statutory independent Appointments Commission accountable to Parliament which would determine numbers and timings of appointments, select independent members of the House to oversee party nominations 2006 discussions
On 22 January 2007 the Power Inquiry launched a campaign for greater citizen involvement and provided statistics showing that 68% of the public felt a jury of the general public should decide "the future of the House of Lords," 17% thought elected politicians should decide and 9% appointed Civil servants.

Public opinion
On 8 February 2007, the Government published a new white paper Using the Alternative Vote for legislative proposals would have been a precedent for the UK Parliament. Resistance by Members on all sides of the House of Commons caused Leader of the House of Commons Jack Straw to drop this proposal on 19 February. The free vote was therefore held under traditional Parliamentary procedures.

2007 white paper
In March 2007 the Houses of Commons and Lords debated the proposals in the 2007 white paper and voted on a similar series of motions to those voted on in 2003. Unexpectedly, the House of Commons voted by a large majority for an all-elected Upper House. One week later, the House of Lords retorted by voting for an all-appointed House by a larger majority.
After the Commons vote, it turned out that some MPs supporting a fully appointed House had voted tactically for a fully elected House as the option likely to be least acceptable to the House of Lords. This called into question the significance of the larger majority achieved for 100% elected than that achieved for 80% elected. However, examination of the names of MPs voting at each division in the Commons shows that, of the 305 who voted for the 80% elected option, 211 went on to vote for the 100% elected option. Given that this vote took place after the vote on 80% – whose result was already known when the vote on 100% took place – this shows a clear preference in the Commons for a fully elected Upper House over the only other option that passed, since any MP who favoured 80% over 100% would have voted against the latter motion, having already secured their preferred outcome (76 MPs – including Jack Straw, his shadow Theresa May and Opposition Leader David Cameron – did exactly that). Had all the votes been held in the contrary order, those 211 would have voted against the 80% motion, which would consequently have fallen.
There was strong opinion about the votes. Lord McNally, the Liberal Democrat leader in the Lords said the Lords decision:
Prior to the debate Lord Lipsey, former Economics Editor of the Sunday Times, estimated the cost of the plans in the white paper at £1.092 billion over a 15 year term,  :

End the by-elections for hereditary peers and turn the remaining ones into de facto life peers and finally end hereditary entry into our Upper House.
Create a Statutory Appointments Commission to replace Prime Ministerial patronage for new peers.
Authorise the government to proceed with a retirement package which should reduce the average age and decrease the present House of 740 by possibly 200.
Enable peerages to be removed from those guilty of serious offences on the same basis as the Commons. Votes of March 2007
On 19 July 2007 Jack Straw in his new position of Justice Secretary in the cabinet of Gordon Brown announced that "The Government is determined to proceed with this programme of reform with a view to its completion." . Jack Straw also stated that the powers of the chamber, the method of election, financial packages and the number of members will (yet again) be discussed by a cross-party working group. The opposition's response was to suggest that: "the real message in your statement today that Lords reform is on ice until after the next election".

The Brown Premiership
"Central to the future House of Lords is its composition. For the Lords to act with legitimacy as an effective and balanced second chamber, it must have the right form to deliver the range of roles and functions it needs". With 1101 submissions to the first consultation, several hundred to the second and many articles in the newspapers and various discussions, there were many different views on reform of the House of Lords. It is only possible to give a broad outline of the many different proposals and even then only those where the proposals were mentioned by a number of respondents.
Proposals are listed alphabetically

The range of options
Many legislatures, such as the parliaments of Sweden, Denmark and New Zealand (and within the UK, the Scottish Parliament) are unicameral, and do not have an upper house. Instead, scrutiny is carried out by parliamentary committees. A substantial minority of MPs voted for the outright abolition of the upper house in 2003, and it was Labour party policy until the late 1980s.
During the 2007 debates in the Lords, it was suggested by one Lord that the then relative strength of the Commons was close to a unicameral system.

Abolition
There was a considerable number of proposals in the consultation for an Upper House chosen by allotment (selection by lot). Proposals varied from a House chosen completely at random from the whole electorate to those where allotment was applied to smaller groups such as those volunteering or those selected in another way. Most proposals referred to the allotment of the governing juries in the original democracy in Ancient Greece, where selection by lot was considered to be more democratic than election:
However, at present within the UK, this form of selection is mainly restricted to the allotment of jurors. Opposition is based either on the practical need for some expertise amongst members of the upper chamber or on a belief that "Democracy means an elected second chamber".

Allotment/sortition
The reason that the UK almost uniquely (except the Canadian Senate) still retained an appointed House of Lords in 1997 was that, it was widely accepted that it worked effectively. In particular the large number of cross bench peers would be impossible to achieve in most electoral systems.
Those supporting a fully appointed House, reject the idea of a composite partly elected, party appointed House:
The main issues are:

Achieving a range of representation, bringing in those with skills and experience, allowing ex officio members and ensuring a continuity of membership
Maintaining the status and independence of the Lords without endangering the supremacy of the Commons
Maintaining the low cost of the present House
Preventing the possibility of a constitutional clash between appointed and elected members Appointment
By far the most commonly suggested proposal for reform amongst politicians is a combination of an elected and appointed House and this was the original proposal recommended by the Wakeham Report. Proponents suggest the combination would allow an appointed element to retain the skills and experience of the present House and elections would make it democratic without the problems of being fully elected which would allow the Upper House to challenge the primacy of the commons. Opponents say that the two types of members will inevitably conflict, voting for part of the House will have little support amongst an already sceptical electorate, and the lack of synergy will make it worse than either a fully elected or fully appointed house. Various proposals on the exact percentage of those elected and appointed have been produced:

In January 2002, the Conservatives unveiled plans for a 300 member "Senate", with 240 members elected by first past the post for 15 years
The Elect the Lords campaign set up by New Politics Network and Charter88 supports a predominantly elected second chamber.
In 2005, a cross party group of MPs chaired by Paul Tyler consisting of Ken Clarke, Robin Cook, Dr Tony Wright and Sir George Young proposed a 70% elected second chamber, elected in thirds at each general election using the single transferable vote. This proposal was largely adopted by the Power Commission. Combination
Under this proposal, a jury would appoint some or all members of the chamber so retaining the skills and experience of the present House and also making its selection more democratic not seen before the second consultation where it was supported by around 10% of submissions.

Democratic appointments
Many countries have directly elected Upper Chambers but they try to make their electoral systems for the second chamber as distinct as possible from the first chamber by holding elections on a different cycle or electing only a proportion of members on each occasion..
Most proponents support a system of Proportional Representation
The Tories have called for the second chamber to be elected by First Past the Post. Election
A large number of hereditary peers were crossbenchers with a wide range of interests outside politics - a valuable asset to Parliament. A hereditary right, which passes across the generations, may have the benefit of encouraging a longer-term perspective but this is at the expense of creating a divisive society. Moreover, in practice, the hereditary Peers had a natural bias on many issues (e.g., their support for the Conservative Party). There are now few in current British politics who openly support this form of selection. However, there is a feeling in many sections of British society that an independent house is needed to check the government and it has been suggested that this was achieved by the combination of hereditary and life peers pre-1997 era. Also, the more conservative sections of the political establishment still have sympathies towards this type of an upper house.

Heredity
About 30% of overseas second chambers are elected by indirect methods, including France, Ireland the Netherlands and South Africa. The electoral college often consists of members of local authorities or regional assemblies, and may include members of the primary chamber. There are various proposals:

Elections by Regional Development Agencies and voluntary regional chambers, the London Assembly would "would demonstrate a direct connection between these other bodies and the central institutions at Westminster" and because "many of these bodies had themselves been elected... it could therefore reinforce the democratic nature of an otherwise nominated House"
A variety of institutions such as the Royal Society and charities, are able to elect or appoint a member. Other groups could include the TUC, the GMC, and the Law Society. This would also involve keeping the Law Lords and Lords Spiritual.
It has also been suggested that leaders of local councils (who have already been elected to their position) sit in the House of Lords. Indirect election/appointment
A system proposed by musician and activist Billy Bragg (and endorsed by the Economist magazine) whereby the share of each party's votes at each general election is aggregated and each party is allocated a number of places proportionately using a closed list system[3]. Each elector would have one vote which would both determine their local MP and the composition of the Upper House.
The advantages of this system are claimed to be that: there would be only one election campaign to fund, it does not waste votes because votes for minority parties will count in the Upper House and so it should improve voter turnout, and as the upper house has no direct vote it has no separate mandate and so the Commons will remain supreme. Critics however see a single vote as a choice between voting for an MP or voting for the upper house; if large numbers choose to vote for the upper house instead of their MP it would undermine the mandate of the Commons and create a confused election (for example MPs might be ousted by a poor performance of their party in the Upper House and vice versa).

Secondary mandate

At present, the Scottish Parliament has devolved powers over areas like Health and Education. The Scottish Parliament does not have an upper chamber but instead MSPs scrutinise legislation in a committee system. This means that, for example, legislation on English health and education is subject to the House of Lords, whilst Scottish legislation is not.
There are some concerns that a reformed upper house may be "a feeder body" into the lower house (Charlotte Atkins MP) as has occurred in other countries with bicameral parliaments. Various proposals have been put forward to prevent this happening, including a five-year ban on former members of the Lords seeking election to the Commons. Others are concerned that the upper house may be filled by MPs who lose their seats.
The House of Lords has a judicial function, which will be clearly affected by the reform process, although there are already plans for a separate Supreme Court.
The future of peerages. One proposal is that peerages should remain, as part of the honours system, but that they should no longer be linked to membership of the upper house.
The name. Were the link between peerages and membership of the upper house to end, the name of the upper house might also change as a consequence. The Liberal Democrats, have proposed Senate, as in other countries. The Labour government has not put forward any proposed names, instead referring to the "reformed chamber" [4] although the Leader of the House of Commons committee has promised to consult on a final name. Further reading

Allotment
Election
Appointment
House of Lords
Constitutional Reform Act 2005
Canadian Senate Reform