Nick Clegg's plans for reforming the House of Lords have been condemned by peers as a senior Government minister appeared to cast doubt on the Deputy Prime Minister's intentions to push ahead with the proposals next year.
The Liberal Democrat leader insisted this week that a reform bill would be introduced next year and forced through using the Parliament Act if necessary.
But Lords leader Lord Strathclyde said legislation to reform the Lords had been promised before but not appeared and told peers "we shall have to wait" to see if the bill would be in the Queen's Speech at the opening of the next session of Parliament.
Answering questions in the Lords, he said Labour former ministers had made repeated commitments to Lords reform that had foundered.
Asked whether the Deputy Prime Minister's announcement of a reform bill was the product of a "collective decision" of the Cabinet, Lord Strathclyde said: "Over the course of the last 10 years, I have been told by Lord Irvine of Lairg, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, Jack Straw that in the next session there would be a House of Lords reform bill. So, to get the definitive answer we shall have to wait for the appearance of Her Majesty at the State Opening of Parliament."
Crossbencher Lord Kakkar said that in 1911 the Asquith government's Parliament Act had specified that measures would be needed to set limits on the powers of an elected second chamber.
He asked: "Is the Deputy Prime Minister's single-minded obsession with abolition... not only deeply irresponsible but fraught with constitutional hazards?"
One of the main concerns of those opposed to a wholly or partly-elected House of Lords is that if members were voted for, they would not feel obliged to give way to the primacy of the House of Commons - potentially leading to stalemates between the two Houses of Parliament.
Tory former Cabinet minister Lord Howe warned the proposals could lead to "increased risk of conflict" between the Houses. Lord Strathclyde acknowledged that was one of the Government's expectations for the plans.
He said: "There is an expectation that there would be a risk of greater conflict between the two Houses because elected members of a second chamber would use their powers more assertively and, perhaps even, more effectively. That is an undeniable conclusion of the process that we are going to go under."