This week a poll of peers revealed overwhelming opposition to Nick Clegg's proposals to reform the House of Lords. Emine Saner invites two peers, Helena Kennedy and David Steel, to discuss their house's future.

Helena Kennedy: David, you've shifted your position on this. You used to be a reformer like me.

David Steel: I am a reformer, but a practical one. Anyone can say, "Off with their heads," and get loud applause. But if we're going to have an elected second chamber it's going to be in competition with what I think should be the primacy of the House of Commons. The Cunningham committee, the report approved by both houses, said that if there is an elected upper chamber, the conventions between the houses must be rewritten, and yet the government's white paper says no, the powers will remain the same. I don't see how they can. Once you have an elected upper chamber, they will demand more powers.

HK: It has to be part of a wider context. There should be a written constitution which would set down the powers. The first question you ask about the House of Lords is: what is its purpose?

DS: I'm with you on that. What is it for now? It scrutinises legislation very effectively, it occasionally sends things back to the Commons to say think again. It has no financial powers. If that's all it's going to do, who is going to stand for a chamber that has limited power?

HK: I think people will, because it still involves you in the legislature. You or I wouldn't be here if we didn't think it had a purpose. When I chaired the power inquiry, the general view of the public was that the second chamber should be elected. However, they added that they want expertise, and independent-minded people. That's the difficulty.

DS: How would you guarantee they would get elected? The way the people in the Lords are trying to square that circle is, say, let's have 20% appointed. But what happens if the votes of the 20% unelected actually decide a key issue? If we're going to have an elected chamber, it has to be wholly elected.

HK: If you have 20% who are there by an independent appointment committee – which chooses Nobel prize winners in science, former judges, people from the health service, teachers and so on – it will act as a guiding principle for the electoral process for the rest. It could be a useful way of reforming.

DS: This is a cop-out. If you believe the House of Lords has a level of expertise you want to keep, the answer is to reform the existing house but keep it on the basis that people are appointed for their expertise, and not all ex-politicians.

HK: There are too many of them …

DS: People from the academic world, trade unions, professions – the level of expertise in the House of Lords now would not be there under an elected system. The logic is you either have all-elected and you forget about expertise, or you keep the expertise. Another issue is what this will cost. These people, according to the government, will be 300 full-time paid, almost on the same level as MPs, not counting secretaries and researchers. It will be much more expensive. Do the public really want that?

HK: You're right they won't be terribly happy about it, but the public are not part of this debate at the moment. Some might say that if you are facing the loss of your job and worries about the cost of education for your children, nobody is putting reform of the House of Lords as a priority. However, I think there is something abhorrent about the idea that we in the House of Lords should be the people who decide to wreck a bill that says we should be reforming. It's a bit like the police deciding whether they are a good force or not.

DS: We don't wreck bills, we amend them.

HK: You know that by being particularly bloody-minded, the House of Lords can stymie legislation. We could have a deliberative poll where you bring together 500 people, selected carefully from the voting register, who represent the demographics of Britain, and then have them hear evidence. You can give evidence why you think there is concern about the potential for deadlock between two elected houses. I've spent my life in front of juries, and when people are given good information they usually reach good decisions. There was something horrible when it came to that business of the people's peers [the more "representative" peers Tony Blair introduced in 2001] where someone said we don't want a crowd of hairdressers. In fact, I'd be quite keen on some hairdressers and bus drivers in the house. I don't want it to be another staging post for professional politicians. I say that respectfully to you, because you are one of those who does enrich the House of Lords. I look around the lords and there are some fantastic people in there.

DS: Leave aside the party politicians, look at the crossbenchers – there are some fantastic people. But can you imagine any of them standing for election?

HK: I think some of them would. As long as there is no ignominy in it, you put forward a statement about what you stand for, what you believe in, what you've done. I suspect the public would say we do want independent-minded people, we don't want people who are part of the political machine.

DS: I appointed people to the House of Lords in my time, and I don't think it's right. And according to the government they're going to be there for 15 years. How accountable will they be if they're going to be there for 15 years? You've never been an MP but I have, and you have a great pride in your constituency. If you have an elected house in future, there could be some senator wandering over my constituency, maybe not of my same party, and I don't think I want a rival in my constituency, and I think that's the general view of most MPs – someone travelling over their territory saying, "I've got a mandate too, and what's more, my mandate lasts 15 years and I'm not accountable to anybody."

HK: It is complex, and often people are quite knee-jerk in saying of course it should be elected. But what I insist upon is that it cannot be the people who are the current beneficiaries of the system who prevent any real reform taking place.

DS: I agree, but it is the House of Commons that will determine what happens. From the reception that the government paper got, my worry is that we will get bogged down over the next few years in endless debates on these proposals.

HK: I think Nick Clegg, because of what happened on AV, is going to want to be seen to deliver something on a constitutional issue. He's pushing for it. Cameron would like it to fall into the long grass. We'll see who wins.

DS: There is a growing body of opinion within my party that we have to save Clegg from having egg on his face and this scheme is not fit to fly. It's so inadequate that the danger is it will run into the long grass and we'll end up with nothing. Which is why the Commons committee on the constitution says whatever the plans for the future, let's get on and improve the existing house.