The Executive Powers and Civil Service Bill (a private member's Bill) was introduced in the House of Lords. The Bill defined the executive powers of government, and placed their exercise under the authority of Parliament; imposed specific requirements for Parliamentary approval before treaties could be ratified or commitments made for direct participation in war and international peace-keeping activities; puts the fundamental principles underlying the operation of the Civil Service onto a statutory footing, and defined the role of special advisers; established a Civil Service Commission as an independent statutory body with functions of audit and investigation; and set out a procedure for making certain public appointments subject to Parliamentary approval.
Source: Lord Lester, Executive Powers and Civil Service Bill [HL], TSO (0870 600 5522)
Links: Text of Bill
Date: 2003-Dec
Campaigners said they were 'extremely doubtful' that proposals in a government consultation paper would achieve the goal of having a House of Lords which reflected the make up of society as a whole, including numbers of women.
Source: Letter 12 December 2003, Fawcett Society (020 7253 2598)
Links: Letter (pdf)
Date: 2003-Dec
The government announced its intention to introduce a Bill to remove the remaining hereditary peers from the House of Lords (leaving the House an almost entirely appointed body). It was criticised for breaching a promise that it would only do so at the final stage of its original reform plans for the House, whereas none of the options under those plans had won a majority in the House of Commons. A House of Commons briefing paper summarised recent developments in the process of House of Lords reform.
Source: House of Commons Hansard, 26 November 2003, columns 4-7 (Queen's Speech), TSO (0870 600 5522) | Richard Kelly, House of Lords Developments since January 2002, Research Paper 03/85, House of Commons Library (web publication only)
Links: Text of Queen's Speech | Constitution Unit press release | HOC Library research paper (pdf)
Date: 2003-Nov
The government began consultation on its proposals to abolish the remaining hereditary peerages, and to establish a statutory independent commission (accountable to Parliament) for appointments to the House of Lords. Peers accused the government of reneging on a promise not to remove the remaining hereditary peers prior to a comprehensive reform of the upper House: but the government blamed the failure of Parliament to support any of the reform options proposed.
Source: Constitutional Reform: Next steps for the House of Lords, Department for Constitutional Affairs (020 7210 8500) | House of Commons Hansard, Debate 18 September 2003, columns 1086-1104, TSO (0870 600 5522)
Links: Consultation document | Hansard | Guardian report
Date: 2003-Sep
Responding to a report by a joint committee of MPs and peers, the government said that it endorsed the view that Parliamentary votes had shown there was 'no consensus about introducing any elected element in the House of Lords'. (The House of Lords voted in February 2003 for a wholly appointed House, while the Commons failed to endorse any of the reform options.) Campaigners accused the government of reneging on its commitment to reform the upper House. The former Leader of the House of Commons (Robin Cook MP) reportedly described the decision as 'pusillanimous, pathetic and mean'.
Source: House of Lords Reform: Government reply to the Committee's Second Report, Second Special Report (Session 2002-03), HL 155 and HC 1027, Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform (House of Lords and House of Commons), TSO (0870 600 5522) | Press release 17.7.03, Charter88 (020 8880 6088) | The Guardian, 18.7.03
Links: Response | Report | Charter88 press release | Guardian report
Date: 2003-Jul
A joint committee of MPs and peers appealed to the government for a fresh mandate on the issue of reforming the House of Lords (following inconclusive votes in Parliament), in order to rescue the process from becoming a 'pathetic parliamentary farce'.
Source: House of Lords Reform, Second Report (Session 2002-03), HL 97 and HC 668, Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform (House of Lords and House of Commons), TSO (0870 600 5522)
Links: Report | Guardian report
Date: 2003-May
A report argued that Parliament should be involved at an earlier stage in the process of examining government tax proposals and related legislation.
Source: Making Tax Law: Report of a Working Party on the institutional processes for tax proposals and tax legislation, TLRC Discussion Paper 3, Institute for Fiscal Studies (020 7291 4800)
Links: Press release (pdf)
Date: 2003-Mar
The House of Commons voted not to endorse any of the options before it for reforming the House of Lords. The option of electing 80 per cent of the upper chamber attracted most support. The Prime Minister and most of the Cabinet voted for an appointed chamber. Campaigners for constitutional reform issued a statement on behalf of 133 different bodies, calling for a reformed House of Lords with a 'democratic mandate'. But the all-party committee of MPs which had drawn up the reform options decided to disband itself.
Source: House of Commons Hansard, Debate 4.2.03, columns 152-243, TSO (0870 600 5522) | The Guardian, 25.2.03 | The Independent, 26.2.03
Links: Hansard | Guardian report (5.2.03) | Guardian report (25.2.03) | Independent article
Date: 2003-Feb
The Prime Minister suggested that he personally favoured a wholly appointed House of Lords, despite a Labour Party commitment to introduce a more democratic and representative second chamber.
Source: House of Commons Hansard, Oral Answers 29.1.03, column 877, TSO (0870 600 5522) | The Guardian, 29.1.03
Links: Hansard | Guardian report
Date: 2003-Jan
Reformed House of Commons procedures, including more 'family-friendly' working hours, came into effect. The notice for tabling oral questions was reduced from two weeks to three days. There will also be question times on cross-departmental issues.
Source: The Guardian, 8.1.03
Links: Guardian report
Date: 2003-Jan