The House of Lords and secondary legislation: Government declines to implement Strathclyde Review (for now)

The Government has today published its response to several highly critical select committee reports concerning the Strathclyde Review. That Review, prompted by the House of Lords’ opposition to secondary legislation on tax credits, was published in December 2015. The Strathclyde Review’s central recommendation was that the House of Lords’ powers in respect of statutory instruments should be brought more into line with its powers, under the Parliament Acts 1911–49, in respect of primary legislation. The Lords would have lost its power to block statutory instruments, any attempt to block being vulnerable to the exercise by the House of Commons of an override … Continue reading The House of Lords and secondary legislation: Government declines to implement Strathclyde Review (for now)

Parliament, Government and Secondary Legislation: Lords Select Committees respond to the Strathclyde Review

I wrote in December about the Strathclyde Review, which took place at great speed in the autumn against the backdrop of the House of Lords’ refusal to allow the enactment of secondary legislation on tax credits. The Review — set up by the Government — recommended stripping the Lords of its power to veto statutory instruments by investing the Commons with statutory authority to override the Lords in the event of opposition to secondary legislation. Two House of Lords Select Committees — the Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee — have now published reports that are … Continue reading Parliament, Government and Secondary Legislation: Lords Select Committees respond to the Strathclyde Review

The House of Lords and secondary legislation: Some initial thoughts on the Strathclyde Review

The Strathclyde Review, which was prompted by the House of Lords’ opposition to secondary legislation on tax credits, has been published. Its recommendation is straightforward: that the House of Lords’ powers in respect of statutory instruments (which is the form taken by the majority of secondary legislation) should be brought broadly into line with its powers, under the Parliament Acts 1911–49, in respect of primary legislation. The upshot, if the Strathclyde recommendation were implemented, would be that the House of Lords would lose its power to veto statutory instruments, any attempt by the Lords to block a statutory instrument being vulnerable to … Continue reading The House of Lords and secondary legislation: Some initial thoughts on the Strathclyde Review

Public Law Update #5: House of Lords Reform

This post is the fifth in a series of six updates for the 2015-16 academic year. The posts in this series are co-written by Mark Elliott and Robert Thomas, the authors of Public Law, published by Oxford University Press. Further information about Public Law can be found here. Our focus in these updates is on six key areas in which the constitution is undergoing, or is likely to undergo, change. We have taken as our reference point the outcome of the 2015 general election, and its likely implications for the future of the British constitution. In this fifth post in the series, we consider the implications of the 2015 election for … Continue reading Public Law Update #5: House of Lords Reform

The End of the Road for the Salisbury Convention?

The Sky News website reproduces some interesting remarks made by Tim Farron, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, yesterday. Defending the decision that Liberal Democrat peers in the House of Lords should seek to block housing legislation that would implement a Conservative manifesto commitment extending the right to buy to housing association tenants, Farron said: I am going to argue that any party that got 24% of the eligible voters hasn’t got a democratic mandate. My view is I have to defend the communities of this country that stand to lose their affordable homes, their very heart and therefore to be ripped under … and … Continue reading The End of the Road for the Salisbury Convention?