The last 24 hours have been tumultuous for the Government and their ‘economic agenda’.
In the face of widespread public opposition to the method of reform to tax credits the Chancellor George Osborne pushed ahead. The only reason I can fathom is that he didn’t take the Lords’ threats to defeat the proposals seriously. Otherwise why not engage with them before suffering a defeat and then having to engage anyway, while on the back foot? Not something I am writing about now but an interesting insight to his political instincts nonetheless.
The changes to introduce tax credits were in a statutory instrument (a detail I’d take a punt that the public cares for very little). This meant the way in which the changes were legally implemented were not part of Budget implementation legislation. This in turn meant that when the vote in the House of Lords occurred, many Lords didn’t consider the change to be ‘a financial measure.’ Nor were the changes to tax credits specifically in the Conservative’s Election Manifesto.
Now those two details are important. Constitutional convention dictates that the House of Commons has the final say on financial matters. Fair enough, it is the elected Chamber. On this occasion, the Lords defeated the measure and justified it on the grounds of the type of vote – statutory instrument vs. Budget legislation. I won’t wade into that particular debate because I am not a legal scholar and it’d just be bloody dull.
That the changes weren’t in the Manifesto speaks to another Constitutional Convention that the Lords do not block measures that are enacting an election pledge of the Government. Another sensible convention.
The last 24 hours have given rise to a serious question. One that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have already raised in response to not getting their way. The Lords have overstepped the mark! Let’s make sure they don’t again! How? Er… create more Lords? An approach one might expect from Monty Python, not the Prime Minister.
Reform is necessary. Following last night’s debacle the Tories suddenly agree! Great!
It is from there that the conversation seems to go wrong. The dialogue from the point of “we must reform” seems to go in the direction of what the Lords might look like and how it might be selected etcetera, etcetera. All pretty good stuff. But actually those questions are premature.
What we need to consider is why do we have the Lords? What purpose does the Chamber serve? How should it serve that purpose? Once we have thought about that we can answer the bits about elections, term lengths, powers, and all that jazz.
As a recently arrived immigrant in the UK, a Chamber like the Lords seems with its titles and idiosyncrasies is a fascinating oddity. As it stands, it seems as though the House of Lords is a chamber for retired politicians and other people who’ve had high profile careers but don’t want to step out of public life. Yes I know that isn’t the case for all and many Peers are hardworking and dedicated to their work.
That is fantastic and brings me to my point. The Lords is an amazing institution full of history and tradition that ought to be preserved. But the dignity of the place demands that it is more than a place to delay legislation by passing fatal motions (sounds terrifying), expressing regret (I imagine that is like when your parents aren’t angry, just disappointed) and the like.
The Lords could and ought to have a much greater prominence and have extended to them greater powers. A place with gravitas and mana. That the country respects, while also having a wee giggle at the funny clothes.
Tories are claiming that Peers have acted outside their mandate in stopping these cuts going through. Maybe they have, to be honest, I don’t care. The Lords’ voted in response to a large and genuine public outcry. The unelected Lords seem to have been more responsive to public opinion than the elected House of Commons. How’s that for irony?
This article was written in October 2015.
