Following the publication of the Strathclyde Review, the Tories’ revenge attack on the House of Lords, Jim Wallace has written for Politics Home to say that we need a strong second chamber to keep the Government under control.
He looks back at the Tax Credits issue and criticises the Government’s strategy of trying to limit the debate in the Lords:
The Government proposed this change in an SI, for which the scrutiny process is considerably weaker. Each House would only have a single debate on an issue, with the Commons’ time severely limited. It could, of course, have brought the measure forward in primary legislation, where much more detailed scrutiny is possible. And if they had inserted clauses into the Finance Bill, the Lords could not have touched it. But Ministers, fearing perhaps that a number of Tory rebels might join forces with the opposition in the Commons to amend the Bill, chose the route which offered least resistance. Or so they thought.
But, the House of Lords voted to delay implementation of the changes to tax credits until transitional protections were put in place. The Government’s response was to throw its hands up in horror at the temerity of the Lords daring to express a view that was contrary to theirs.
Having lost the argument, says Jim, the Government is now trying to change the rules:
But this response is unfortunately not surprising from a Government which is doing all it can to stifle those who challenge them. Their actions speak loudly – playing around with the Human Rights Act; threats to leave the Strasbourg court; watering down Freedom of Information; making it harder for people to register to vote; creating a two-tier system of MPs; boundary reform; cutting funding for Opposition parties; and curbing the rights of trade unions.
It is simply wrong that any government achieving a majority in the Commons should have the absolute power to prosecute its business without the burden of proper checks and balances, particularly as voter turnout declines and governments are elected by a smaller and smaller share of the vote.
You can read the whole article here.
* Newshound: bringing you the best Lib Dem commentary in print, on air or online.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Back on the campaign trail
1963: London's summer of the Hoverbus
Have resignations led to a rethink?
Steve J Smith
nigel hunter
Chloe
Abrial Jerram
9 Comments
Third article in a week prompting commentary on our Peers , first , Malcolm Bruce , arriving , then Shirley Williams retiring. Now Jim Wallace , debating ! Actually I am very keen on the Upper House and say so often , though as critical as anyone of its being wholly appointed .It does contain very good people . This article , and therefore Lord Wallace s point is a valid one .They had a degree of legitimacy on their stance and methods re tax credits , and on several comments in the article , the tone is right , because the tone of the government is shrill . It is their method that is worse than the motive on occasion , though not on the tax credits , where the government were appalling , as were their place men , and women , trapsing through the Lords . Yet on “a two tier system of mp s ,” it was the governments tactics , not their intention , that was wrong . The Scottish mp s voting on purely English matters is a disgrace and was for years , Simon Hughes and various English members of our party feel it . Lord Wallace , as a good Scot , yet a good Democrat should understand that .
The major problem is the lack of breadth of experience. The days when people gained vast amounts of experience and responsbilities in WW 1 and 2 are long gone. The vast majority of politicians are suburban types who have lived cushy lives and and have never had to take life or death decisions. D Healey realised that there was a difference between a plan and reality and what was important and what was not. He also appreciated that compared to some he had not done anything particularly difficult( commanding a submarine, major in the special forces or squadron leader pilot by the age of 23 ). Sir John Harvey Jones said the finest management training scheme was the RN up to 1815 and he a No2 in a submarine at 21!
Respect has to be earned . Those who have overcome challenges have a confidence which enables them to earn the respect of people from a wide range of backgrounds.
Whilst the Lords is unelected I think it should be an impotent debating society or only have the power to delay, which is what the Strathclyde Review proposes amongst its recommendations.
I thought in any dispute between the Monarch, the Lords and the Commons (or Executive) that Lib Dems and the democratic left would take the side of those elected. But it seems that isn’t necessarily the case. I can imagine plenty of liberals supporting previous Monarch’s such as Charles I of the UK or Louis XVI of France on the basis of fears about the exact kind of democratic reform that would replace it.
Well Eddie ,if it were Chares 1 or Cromwell , who was known in my Catholic secondary school as ” the butcher of Ireland ,” I d struggle to pick ! I think there s democratic and there s legitimate , usually one and the same , but not every single time , if the seemingly undemocratic has consent of support that is demonstrable. Certainly as a strong Liberal and Democrat , there are , occasions when one has to choose between undemocratic and humane , or democratic and wicked . Its rare , but Kaiser , Weimar , and Hitler spring to mind !
Hi Lorenzo, I agree about legitimacy, which is why I say the crucial principle is self-determination, rather than democracy per se. The current Monarch has the support of the country, so it would be undemocratic to try to force her removal.
However, with the tax credits debate so much of the case against seemed to be simply that it was “unfair”. Well, if unfairness is a reason to subvert democracy then there will be attempts to subvert it all the time and not just from the left. I won’t be buying into this principle though.
Eddie , good to read your comments ,as every debate is often its own particular situation, I reckon the tax credit issue in the Lords ,was due to the way the government tried to sneak it through, as a procedural device, and therefore minimum debate , rather like the latest , and more successful fracking stance. Therefore the Lords , I believe ,saw no legitimacy because , it was not a procedural matter , plus it had not , been specified in a manifesto , and was therefore , illegitimate , I think . Confused ? I Like your similar views to mine , it appears , re monarchy , I have , over the years , since youth , and due to real liking for their efforts , become , not a royalist , no , yet definitely , in this country , and our times , a constitutional monarchist .
Good points on the procedural device, Lorenzo.
Lorenzo:
Don’t believe what Catholic schools tell you about Cromwell (or Thomas More, for that matter).
Eddie – if the Commons reflected the majority, the case against the Lords would be stronger. But the present Commons clearly doesn’t. Moreover, the tax credits changes were not in the Tory manifesto and, like their devastation of renewable energy could be said to be contrary to the prospectus on which they got just over 1/3 of the votes.
Of course it would be better to have an elected second chamber – but who blocked that?
Interesting that no LibDem has made any comment about successive government’s increasing use of SI’s and most notably the Coalition’s (see http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi for a telling bar graph) to avoid democratic and public debate.
The evidence is that SI’s don’t get scrutinised in the Commons (and how could they when over 3,000 of these are enacted each year and they only sit for 133 days?) and going through “on the nod”. Currently, the only check is in the Lords who’s only tool is to kill it with a “fatal resolution”.
Hence those who allow their bias against the HoL rule their head’s and hence support the idea of only permitting the HoL’s to ‘delay’ such legislation are in fact supporting the erosion of our democracy…