XClose

The Constitution Unit

Home
Menu

Meg Russell's PACAC evidence on the Strathclyde review and the Lords

20 January 2016

MR - PACAC 190116

Meg Russell has given evidence to the House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC) on the circumstances surrounding the Strathclyde review of the House of Lords' powers, and its possible implications on Tuesday 19 January 2016. The session can be watched on the parliament website or read the full transcript.

In what proved to be a marathon session of almost one and a half hours (followed by Lord Strathclyde's own evidence, of just 45 minutes), the committee asked wide ranging questions of Professor Russell. These covered the pre-existing conventions about the House of Lords' treatment of secondary legislation, the chamber's behaviour over the tax credits regulations (on 26 October 2015), the appropriateness of the government's response, the quality and accuracy of the Strathclyde report, the implications of its recommendations for the quality of legislative scrutiny and the relationship between government and parliament, and other various pressing questions about the Lords: size growth, the problems of unregulated prime ministerial patronage, and possible changes to implement a more regulated system and help maintain the House of Lords' effectiveness.

Key points made by Professor Russell on the Strathclyde report included:

  • The most urgent problem facing the Lords does not concern its powers, but its composition, and in particular the serious constitutional anomaly that the Prime Minister retains completely unrestricted powers to appoint to the chamber. (9.45; 10.16; 10.23; 10.43)
  • That the tax credits row and Strathclyde report have brought two larger issues to the fore: questions about the extent and appropriateness of delegated power/use of secondary legislation (9.46; 10.13; 10.34), and threats that the Prime Minister could 'flood' the Lords with Conservative peers, which served to demonstrate the problems with his unrestrained power (10.39).
  • That prerogative powers have been reined in in many areas in recent years, including war powers, treaty making and control over the civil service; but that control over appointments to the second chamber remains a serious problem, with the only potential constraint coming from the monarch (which could place her in a very awkward position) (10.18; 10.47)
  • That parliament should act on this matter, in the absence of government action. Options include a bill from members in one or other chamber, or perhaps from this committee (recalling that its predecessor committee, PASC, produced a Civil Service Bill), and resolutions in one or other chamber to propose a limit on the size of the Lords (maybe simply stating that it should be no larger than the House of Commons). (10.38; 10.46; 10.52)
  • That various other options exist for managing appointments in the future: sharing out appointments based on a clear formula policed by the House of Lords Appointments Commission, with a basic principle of 'one-in-one-out' (i.e. that appointments should depend on 'vacancies', when existing peers depart), plus possible mass retirements. (10.40; 10.54)

But she emphasised that other questions relating to the Lords are more important:

  • The most urgent problem facing the Lords does not concern its powers, but its composition, and in particular the serious constitutional anomaly that the Prime Minister retains completely unrestricted powers to appoint to the chamber.
  • That the tax credits row and Strathclyde report have brought two larger issues to the fore: questions about the extent and appropriateness of delegated power/use of secondary legislation, and threats that the Prime Minister could 'flood' the Lords with Conservative peers, which served to demonstrate the problems with his unrestrained power.
  • That prerogative powers have been reined in in many areas in recent years, including war powers, treaty making and control over the civil service; but that control over appointments to the second chamber remains a serious problem, with the only potential constraint coming from the monarch (which could place her in a very awkward position).
  • That parliament should act on this matter, in the absence of government action. Options include a bill from members in one or other chamber, or perhaps from this committee (recalling that its predecessor committee, PASC, produced a Civil Service Bill), and resolutions in one or other chamber to propose a limit on the size of the Lords (maybe simply stating that it should be no larger than the House of Commons).
  • That various other options exist for managing appointments in the future: sharing out appointments based on a clear formula policed by the House of Lords Appointments Commission, with a basic principle of 'one-in-one-out' (i.e. that appointments should depend on 'vacancies', when existing peers depart), plus possible mass retirements.

Related Blogs

Related Reports

Media