The committee believes agreement can be reached over the Lords

The unfinished business of Lords reform must be looked at again or politicians at Westminster will "appear willing players in a pathetic parliamentary farce", the cross party committee responsible has warned.

In February, MPs rejected all seven options put forward for change, while the Lords voted for Tony Blair's preferred option of an all appointed House, against Labour's manifesto commitment of a partially elected House.

The other possibilities included a 100% elected upper house and then various proportions of elected or appointed peers.

In its second report, the joint committee on Lords reform, chaired by Labour MP Jack Cunningham, states that it is not prepared for the issue to be kicked into the "long grass".

The report says: "Despite the inevitable cloud of pessimism cast by the votes on February 4 it may yet be possible to agree a broad consensus on the best way forward."

Hereditary principle

Lords reform was an early intention of the Labour government when it won power in 1997.

The first wave saw the end of the hereditary principle and the exit of 600 peers who held their titles through quirk of birth.

A compromise deal worked out at the time saw 92 hereditaries allowed to remain alongside life peers, law lords and bishops until the second stage reform had been hammered out.

"There remains before us an historic opportunity to enact a reform which will enable the second chamber to continue to play an important and complementary role to the Commons, with its future at last secure," the report adds.

"Parliament can, if it has the will, rescue reform of the House of Lords from the long grass.

New mandate

"Moreover, for so long as this is possible and options for reform remain which have not yet been considered and which might command support, the joint committee must be ready to consider and report upon them.

"History will not look kindly upon our efforts if we fail that test of our resolve."

The committee has asked for a renewed mandate so it can see reform of the Lords through to completion.

Dr Cunningham said: "There are widely differing views within the committee as to the best composition for a reformed second chamber, but one thing we all agree on is that things should not be left as they are.

"In this report we seek a steer from the government, and then from the two Houses, so that we can be confident that further work undertaken by the committee will lead to action."

Soundly rejected?

Meanwhile some of the committee members including James Arbuthnot, Chris Bryant, Ken Clarke, Lord Goodhart, William Hague and Joyce Quin warned against creating a fully appointed Lords.

"Since the House of Commons rejected the option of a fully appointed Second Chamber by a large majority on 4th February it would be absurd and unacceptable to introduce legislation which would have that effect," they said in a statement.

"Simply evicting the hereditary peers, and placing the appointments process on a statutory basis, would result in that soundly rejected option.

"Those who argue that the Commons must remain predominant - including ministers - should surely respect the outcome of that vote by MPs."