Debating the Strathclyde Review

indexLast Wednesday, the House debated the Strathclyde Review – the report produced by Lord Strathclyde in the light of the failure of the House to approve the Tax Credits Regulations last October.  Lord Strathclyde outlined three options for restricting or removing the powers of the House in respect of secondary legislation.

Because of the number of speakers, there was an advisory speaking time of six minutes, so our speeches were relatively short.  You can read my speech here.  I have also done a longer piece for the UCL Constitution Unit blog: you can read it here.  The Review, as I argued, is fundamentally flawed.  It proceeds from a false premise, namely that the House failed to comply with a constitutional convention.  The claim that the House does not reject a statutory instrument or rarely does so does not constitute a convention – it cannot, since the claim refers to a practice, but not an invariable practice – and even if it did it was not breached, as the House did not reject the regulations, but voted for an amendment to delay them until certain conditions were met.

Even if one accepts that there is a case for addressing the powers of the House in respect of secondary legislation, the focus is too narrow.  The House of Lords is the only House with a systematic and effective mechanism for scrutinising secondary legislation.  Its Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee fulfil valuable roles.  The Commons has no equivalent committees.  It has neither the mechanisms nor the political will to engage in detailed scrutiny of statutory instruments.  If one limits the powers of the House of Lords in respect of secondary legislation, one is not protecting the primacy of the House of Commons, but rather strengthening the position of the Government.

Advertisements

About Lord Norton

Professor of Government at Hull University, and Member of the House of Lords
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Debating the Strathclyde Review

  1. tizres says:

    The 2015 manifestos of the three main parties (particularly the Conservative’s) were notable for their length. Can we expect the kitchen sink to be included for future editions?

  2. Dave Green says:

    In relation to your third paragraph, the Ministerial Committee responsible for drawing up the Parliament (No. 2) Bill, nearly fifty years ago, reached precisely the same conclusion!

  3. Pingback: When is a convention not a convention? | The Norton View

  4. Pingback: More on the Strathclyde Review | The Norton View

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s