House of Lords Reform 1997–2010: a Chronology

House of Lords Reform 1997–2010: a Chronology

House of Lords Reform 1997–2010: A Chronology This House of Lords Library Note sets out in summary form the principal developments in House of Lords reform under the Labour Government of 1997–2010. Chris Clarke and Matthew Purvis 28th June 2010 LLN 2010/015 House of Lords Library Notes are compiled for the benefit of Members of Parliament and their personal staff. Authors are available to discuss the contents of the Notes with the Members and their staff but cannot advise members of the general public. Any comments on Library Notes should be sent to the Head of Research Services, House of Lords Library, London SW1A 0PW or emailed to [email protected]. Table of Contents Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1 1997 .................................................................................................................................. 2 1998 .................................................................................................................................. 2 1999 .................................................................................................................................. 3 2000 .................................................................................................................................. 4 2001 .................................................................................................................................. 5 2002 .................................................................................................................................. 6 2003 .................................................................................................................................. 8 2004 ................................................................................................................................ 17 2005 ................................................................................................................................ 21 2006 ................................................................................................................................ 26 2007 ................................................................................................................................ 41 2008 ................................................................................................................................ 60 2009 ................................................................................................................................ 69 2010 ................................................................................................................................ 81 Introduction This House of Lords Library Note sets out in summary form the principal developments in House of Lords reform between the 1997 and 2010 General Elections. It provides a final update of previous House of Lords Library Notes, most recently House of Lords Reform Since 1997: A Chronology (LLN 2010/009). It is primarily concerned with reform proposals in terms of the composition and powers of the House of Lords. It does not focus in detail on measures taken to reform the office of the Lord Chancellor and create the new Supreme Court to replace the Law Lords operating as a committee of the House of Lords. A number of Library Notes published by the House of Lords Library and Research Papers and Standard Notes published by the House of Commons Library have explored developments in House of Lords reform. The purpose of this Library Note is to provide a succinct account of the key events in a single document. Greater consideration is given to more recent developments. 1 April 1997 The Labour Party, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats all included statements on House of Lords reform in their General Election manifestos. The Labour Party manifesto for the 1st May 1997 General Election stated that: The House of Lords must be reformed. As an initial, self-contained reform, not dependent on further reform in the future, the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords will be ended by statute. This will be the first stage in a process of reform to make the House of Lords more democratic and representative. The legislative powers of the House of Lords will remain unaltered. The system of appointment of life Peers to the House of Lords will be reviewed. Our objective will be to ensure that over time party appointees as life Peers more accurately reflect the proportion of votes cast at the previous general election. We are committed to maintaining an independent crossbench presence of life Peers. No one political party should seek a majority in the House of Lords. A committee of both Houses of Parliament will be appointed to undertake a wide- ranging review of possible further change and then to bring forward proposals for reform. (Labour Party, New Labour: Because Britain Deserves Better, April 1997, pp 32–3) 14th and 15th October 1998 The House of Lords conducted a two day debate on Lords reform (HL Hansard, cols 921–1042 and 1052–166). The Lord Privy Seal, Baroness Jay of Paddington, moved a motion taking note of the Government’s proposals for reform of the House of Lords, as set out in the Labour Party manifesto, and announced the Government’s intention to establish a Royal Commission. Baroness Jay stated: The Government recognise that the broader constitutional settlement is both relevant and complicated. It will take time to bed down and assess. For those reasons we want to build on our manifesto proposal for a committee of both Houses of Parliament to consider further reform. We intend to appoint, first, a Royal Commission to undertake a wide-ranging review and to bring forward recommendations for further legislation. When the Royal Commission is formally established, we will set a time limit for it—a time limit for it to do its work and a time limit for it to report back to the Government. The Royal Commission is not a delaying tactic but it is right that there should be wider debate and further analysis before the long term is settled. Our detailed proposals on the role and working operations of the Royal Commission will be announced in the forthcoming White Paper. (HL Hansard, 14th October 1998, col 926) 2 24th November 1998 In the Queen’s Speech for the 1998–99 Session, it was announced that: “A Bill will be introduced to remove the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. It will be the first stage in a process of reform to make the House of Lords more democratic and representative. My Government will publish a White Paper setting out arrangements for a new system of appointments of life Peers and establish a Royal Commission to review further changes and speedily to bring forward proposals for reform”. (HL Hansard, col 4). 19th January 1999 The House of Lords Bill was introduced to the House of Commons (HC Hansard, col 714). The Bill made provision for removing the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. 20th January 1999 The Government published a White Paper, Modernising Parliament: Reforming the House of Lords (Cm 4183). Statements were heard in the Commons and the Lords announcing the publication of the White Paper, the setting up of an appointments commission to recommend non-party political life Peers and the establishment of a Royal Commission, with the following terms of reference: Having regard to the need to maintain the position of the House of Commons as the pre-eminent chamber of Parliament and taking particular account of the present nature of the constitutional settlement, including the newly devolved institutions, the impact of the Human Rights Act and developing relations with the European Union: to consider and make recommendations on the role and functions of a second chamber; and to make recommendations on the method or combination of methods of composition required to constitute a second chamber fit for that role and for those functions; to report by 31 December 1999. (HL Hansard, 20th January 1999, col 585) 11th November 1999 The House of Lords Act 1999 received Royal Assent. The Act removed the right of all but 92 hereditary Peers to sit in the House of Lords. 3 17th November 1999 In the Queen’s Speech for the 1999–2000 Session, the Government announced that it was “committed to further long-term reform of the House of Lords and will look forward to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Reform of the House of Lords” (HL Hansard, col 5). 20th January 2000 The Royal Commission on the Reform of the House of Lords, under the chairmanship of Lord Wakeham, published its report, A House for the Future (Cm 4534), making 132 recommendations. The Royal Commission’s report proposed that a reformed House of Lords would have around 550 members, with 65, 87 or 195 elected members. It recommended the creation of a statutory Appointments Commission to be responsible for all appointments to the Second Chamber. It did not propose any radical change in the balance of power between the two Houses of Parliament. 7th March 2000 The House of Lords debated the Royal Commission’s report (HL Hansard, cols 910–1036). Opening the debate, the Lord Privy Seal, Baroness Jay of Paddington, expressed the Government’s broad acceptance of the report: The Government accept the principles underlying the main elements of the Royal Commission’s proposals on the future role and structure of this House, and will act on them. That is, we agree that

View Full Text

Details

  • File Type
    pdf
  • Upload Time
    -
  • Content Languages
    English
  • Upload User
    Anonymous/Not logged-in
  • File Pages
    95 Page
  • File Size
    -

Download

Channel Download Status
Express Download Enable

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

  • Not to be reproduced or distributed without explicit permission.
  • Not used for commercial purposes outside of approved use cases.
  • Not used to infringe on the rights of the original creators.
  • If you believe any content infringes your copyright, please contact us immediately.

Support

For help with questions, suggestions, or problems, please contact us