The Independent’s hints regarding the content of the Queen’s Speech (see related post) also gives a ‘controversy rating’ of 5/5 to a Government proposal to alter the Lords’ powers of legislative scrutiny.
The foundations of the U.K. constitution stand on shifting sands, sometimes seeming akin to those foundations upon which once stood the mighty works of Ozymandias; at once awesome yet fleetingly fragile.
“Changes to the powers of the House of Lords to stop peers being able to veto so-called statutory instruments that are often used to bring in new laws “by the backdoor”. This is likely to get a very rough ride when it is debated in the Lords and will almost certainly have to be watered down if it has any chance of getting on the statute book”.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-queen-s-speech-six-laws-that-are-about-to-radically-change-a7031866.html (The Independent online, Accessed 17th May 2016).
The same point was given recent publicity by a heavyweight source, in Sir Malcolm Jack; retired Clerk of the House of Commons:
“Sir, May I raise an important matter affecting the relationship between the House of Commons and the House of Lords before the forthcoming Queen's Speech? The government set up the Strathclyde Review after the House of Lords held up the Draft Tax Credits (Income Thresholds and Determination of Rates) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 last autumn. The issue raised was that of Commons financial privilege, whereby the Lords has, since the late-17th century, been restricted in its ability to amend bills of a financial nature. The government took the view that the Lords had infringed that privilege by holding up the regulations.
Whether the government was wise to introduce such a measure in the form of a statutory instrument (of its nature unamendable), and what the episode implies about the use of subordinate legislation to introduce significant matters more suited to primary legislation, have been considered by no less than three select committees of the House of Lords recently. This is not the place to enter into the intricacies of their argument, but it is the place for me to endorse those committees' view that the whole matter should be investigated by a joint committee of both Houses before any legislation is proceeded with”.
(Sir Malcolm Jack Clerk of the House of Commons 2006-11 writing to the Times, Letters, Thursday May 5th 2016).
If Ozymandias had only had wise counsel like Sir Malcolm Jack to advise him, perhaps he would have thought more carefully of the longer-term implications of his recorded legacy in subsequent years?