Skip to site navigation

Press Release: Constitution Unit report calls for new rules on Commons financial privilege

13 March 2014

At an event last night in parliament, the Constitution Unit launched a research report calling for the relationship between the Commons and the Lords on financial matters to be revised. The research was sparked by controversies over the coalition's Welfare Reform Bill, when defeats inflicted by the Lords (on controversial matters such as the benefits cap and so-called "bedroom tax") were rejected using Commons "financial privilege". Among negative comments at that time, former Conservative Chancellor Lord Lawson of Blaby suggested that use of financial privilege had been “completely contrary to the conventions of the constitution”.

The report looked at practice on financial privilege dating back to 1974, using parliamentary records, and included interviews with those currently involved.

Speaking at the launch, Constitution Unit Deputy Director (and report lead author) Meg Russell said that "claims that the government have somehow abused financial privilege are unfounded, but there is widespread confusion about the practice - both inside and outside parliament - and a need for far greater transparency". Report co-author Daniel Gover said that "complaints about financial privilege are nothing new, but they have been particularly prominent under the coalition since 2010 – and such controversies are likely to recur unless procedures change".

The report concludes that financial privilege has become increasingly salient due to the newly confident House of Lords, followed by the post-2010 political agenda of spending cuts. Changes that it argues for include:

  • Far greater clarity on the parliament website about how financial privilege works;
  • A clear and public definition of what Commons financial privilege extends to;
  • Statements issued (as for example occurs in Australia) explaining why financial privilege is thought to apply to any specific Lords amendment;
  • Other elements of clarification, and streamlining of procedures.

Responding to the report, highly regarded lawyer and Crossbench peer Lord Pannick (who has had his own amendments rejected on financial privilege grounds, without clear reasons) said “the Constitution Unit, Meg Russell and Daniel Gover have done a very great service in identifying the principles of financial privilege”. He said “I hope the report will encourage the Commons' authorities to look again at their procedures. At the moment, the procedures are indefensible”.

Notes to editors

  • The Constitution Unit is an independent and non-partisan research centre based in the Department of Political Science at University College London.
  • The report is the main output of a research project "An abuse of privilege? The Commons, the Lords and financial matters", which was funded by the Nuffield Foundation (for full details, including a blogpost and presentation from last night's seminar, see here).
  • Meg Russell (meg.russell@ucl.ac.uk) and Daniel Gover (d.gover@ucl.ac.uk) are available for interview.

Join the Debate

Blog

What the Queen said – and what she didn’t say

Thu, 28 May 2015 12:35:34 +0000

Following yesterday’s Queen’s Speech, Robert Hazell considers the constitutional issues that featured, as well as those which were notable in their absence. There were few surprises in the Queen’s Speech announcing the new government’s legislative programme. Like his admired predecessor Tony Blair, David Cameron knows that the public have little interest in constitutional issues, so […]

Read more...

Routes to EVEL: The challenges facing Chris Grayling in introducing English votes on English laws

Tue, 26 May 2015 10:15:42 +0000

With the Queen’s Speech due tomorrow, we continue our series of blogs about devolution and its consequences, drawing on the Unit’s latest report Devolution and the Future of the Union. Here Robert Hazell analyses the commitment to English votes on English laws, looking first at its history, and then at its prospects. Cynics might assume […]

Read more...

Can David Cameron call a second election? How does that fit with the Fixed Term Parliaments Act?

Fri, 22 May 2015 10:00:34 +0000

Robert Hazell outlines how the Fixed Term Parliaments Act restricts the new government from calling a second election. He writes that if Cameron wanted to take a gamble to boost his slender majority, he would have to work within the confines of the Act given the likely complexities of any attempt to repeal it. This […]

Read more...
Mailing List

Connect with us

RSSFlickr

Footer menu