How the Strathclyde review could empower the government and not the House of Commons
Share this
If the Strathclyde review neuters House of Lords influence on delegated legislation it will empower the government not the House of Commons.
Parliament’s consideration of the controversial Tax Credit regulations in October reflected some of our key concerns about the scrutiny of Statutory Instruments (SI), in particular the heavy burden of scrutiny responsibility that falls on the House of Lords. Unfortunately, the Strathclyde review, which has been set up in direct response to the decision by the Lords to delay these regulations, may further weaken an already deficient delegated legislation process if it renders powerless its only effective feature – the influence of the Lords.
Last week’s reversal of the planned cuts to Tax Credits finally sealed the fate of the Tax Credits (Income Thresholds and Determination of Rates) (Amendment) Regulations 2015. These regulations had effectively been placed in a state of ‘legislative purgatory’ following October’s decision in the House of Lords to delay their approval until the government could provide further information to support the impact of the policy changes.
That decision led to talk of a ‘constitutional crisis’ with Ministers arguing that the unelected Upper Chamber had no right to hold up a financial/tax measure already approved by MPs. In an earlier blog post we outlined why Peers would be acting within their procedural rights and responsibilities to take a view on the Tax Credit regulations. We also made it clear that the House of Lords would not be acting without cause if they rejected the SI, given the concern expressed by various committees, including the government’s own advisory committee, regarding the scant explanations and lack of available evidence provided to help MPs and Peers take an informed decision on the SI.
Nevertheless, the government concluded that the Lords had crossed a constitutional line and the former Leader of the Upper House, Lord Strathclyde has subsequently been tasked to lead a review to consider “how to secure the decisive role of the elected House of Commons in relation to its primacy on financial matters, and secondary legislation”. And in recent days it has been reported that one of the reform options currently being considered by the review panel could see the Lords stripped of their ability to veto delegated legislation.
This approach would be acceptable if the House of Commons was both willing and able to play a decisive role in the scrutiny of delegated legislation. But as we outlined in our report, The Devil is in the Detail: Parliament and Legislation, published last year, this is simply not the case.
The scrutiny process for delegated legislation has become unnecessarily complex such that most MPs simply don’t understand it. And the procedures - particularly those for praying against negative instruments and Delegated Legislation Committee debates for affirmative instruments – are weak. Many of the MPs we interviewed simply weren’t aware of the practicalities relating to the scrutiny of statutory instruments. They did not know that they could table a motion against a negative instrument using an Early Day Motion (EDM), and when they realised, they were bemused, for EDMs are widely regarded by MPs as a waste of time and money. And a number of the MPs we spoke to confirmed that their party whips had told them that it was perfectly acceptable – indeed preferable – to get on with their constituency correspondence during a Delegated legislation Committee meeting.
Consequently a heavy burden of scrutiny responsibility falls upon the House of Lords. Its scrutiny committees are more engaged in the process, more influential with government, and Peers generally have more appetite than MPs for the detail and technical work required to look at a thousand SIs a year. This was no more apparent than during the progress of the Tax Credit regulations last month.
MPs and Peers cannot amend SIs so a key component of the effective scrutiny of delegated legislation in the House of Lords is the possession of a veto power. It gives purpose and leverage to its scrutiny committees. Judicious use of the power – something we said in our report it should actually utilise more regularly given the level of ministerial abuse of the delegated legislation process – can have a seismic impact in Whitehall, forcing departments to be more attentive. Without it, Peers’ influence over the process will be significantly diluted if not completely nullified, thus further empowering an already over-mighty executive in the process.
Given the inadequate nature of Commons scrutiny, any reform that curtails the role of the House of Lords in relation to delegated legislation thus risks turning an already deeply flawed process into a farce. Changes to the Lords should only be made once full consideration has been given to the role of the House of Commons. Consideration, in isolation, of the role of just one House in the delegated legislation process runs the risk of doing more harm than good.
That’s why in our report, we proposed a fundamental review of the entire legislative process looking at how both primary and delegated legislation is prepared in Whitehall and scrutinised in Westminster by both Houses. The system we have for making laws is broken. The issues are now so serious that only a wide-ranging review will do.
Image courtesy:
UK House of Lords, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic
Enjoy reading this? Please consider sharing it
Latest
blog / 13.11.20
Controverted elections: how disputed results used to be part and parcel of English political and parliamentary life
Disputed parliamentary election results – often taking months to resolve - were a frequent feature of English political culture before the reforms of the 19th century. But how could defeated candidates protest the result of an election, and how were such disputes resolved?
Did you get the memo? Post-legislative scrutiny and the case of judicial review
The government has established an independent review of judicial review – but post-legislative scrutiny has not yet been conducted on the previous reform of the system, in the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. This is typical of the low priority given to post-legislative scrutiny by both government and Parliament.
Building on the ‘Brady amendment’: how can Parliament scrutinise Coronavirus regulations more effectively?
A large body of Coronavirus-related Statutory Instruments have been subject to limited parliamentary scrutiny. Amid growing concern that Parliament is being sidelined by ministers, this briefing explores the procedural obstacles to effective scrutiny of the Covid-19 regulations, and how these might be addressed
Politics in Autumn 2020 will continue to be dominated by Coronavirus and the negotiations with the EU, as the end of the post-Brexit transition period approaches on 31 December. But what will this mean for parliamentary business in the coming months, and what scope will there be to tackle other issues? We pick 15 things to look out for.
How is the Petitions Committee representing the public amid the procedural and practical restrictions of the Covid crisis?
Catherine McKinnell MP, Chair of the House of Commons Petitions Committee, sets out how the Covid-19 crisis has significantly increased the public’s use of e-petitions while limiting the House’s ability to debate them. This has prompted the Committee to innovate, to ensure that petitioners’ voices are heard during the crisis.
Demands to recall the House of Commons over this summer’s exams fiasco reinforce the case for taking the process out of government hands
In a crisis the House of Commons is hamstrung if it is in recess, for MPs are not masters of their own House. While any MP can make representations to the government and the House of Commons Speaker to request a recall, under Standing Orders only a formal request from ministers to the Speaker can actually trigger one.
