Lord Irvine of Lairg expressed his view at the end of a two-day debate among peers on the best way forward for the second chamber.

I see nothing illegitimate about an appointed second chamber, subordinate to the elected House of Commons Lord Irvine

His view is believed to be in line with that of Prime Minister Tony Blair who is reportedly opposed to an elected element in the Upper House, an option many Labour MPs support.

The Lord Chancellor argued that an elected second chamber would rival the House of Commons, and its representatives would claim the same prominence and entitlements as MPs, including pay and support services.

The elected House of Commons was at the heart of British democracy and in touch with the people in a direct way that the Lords were not, he said.

Trappings of privilege

Lord Irvine said it was important that the two houses complemented each other instead of competing.

"An appointed House of Lords, chosen in accordance with criteria that will make it more representative of the nation as a whole, can add real value to the high value of the House of Commons," he said.

Irvine: Going against the majority view

"I see nothing illegitimate about an appointed second chamber, subordinate to the elected House of Commons, and bringing its huge collective experience to the benefit of Parliament as a whole, but not seeking to rival the Commons by being equally representative of the electorate."

Lord Irvine's favoured route is in contrast with the widely stated view that a reformed House of Lords should be elected if it is to be a modern and democratic body, moving away from the trappings of tradition and privilege.

Seven options

Earlier this week, an opinion poll by Charter88 - the biggest campaigning organisation for reform of Parliament - suggested that 83% of voters believed at least half the peers should be elected, compared with 3% who said members of the Lords should not face elections.

On 4 February, both the Commons and the Lords will vote on seven options put forward by a special parliamentary committee - chaired by former minister Jack Cunningham - which range from an all-appointed to an all-elected second chamber.

I believe elected members should be part of any reform Lord Strathclyde

Lord Strathclyde, Opposition leader in the Lords said the debate showed that peers would be giving overwhelming support for a wholly appointed Upper House and that view should be respected.

While he did not share this point of view, Lord Strathclyde insisted: "We need a stronger House to be able to exercise its authority and work with the Commons to hold the Executive to account.

"In the 21st century, authority flows from election in a way that it cannot from any other source, and that's why I believe elected members should be part of any reform."

According to a survey quoted in a letter to all MPs from the Commons public administration committee on Monday, MPs are three-to-one in favour of a majority of elected members in the second chamber.

Expertise

But those opposed to an elected Upper House, said to include several senior members of the Cabinet, believe they would pose a serious challenge to the supremacy of the Commons.

Concerns have been raised that ousting life peers, with their expertise in the fields of law, medicine, industry, the voluntary sector, show business and the armed forces, would deprive the Lords of its vital independence.

Peers elected to the second chamber would expect to be paid and enjoy proper working facilities like their colleagues in the Commons.

Reform of the Upper House began in 1999 when more than 600 hereditary dukes, marquises, viscounts, earls and barons were thrown out by the Labour government.

Some 92 hereditaries were allowed to stay on temporarily following a secret deal between Viscount Cranborne, Conservative former Opposition peers' leader and Mr Blair.

A group of hereditaries who lost their seats three years ago are to take their case to the European Court of Human Rights with plans to sue the government for �1m each.