House of Lords: Strathclyde Review Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateLord Richard
Main Page: Lord Richard (Labour - Life peer)Department Debates - View all Lord Richard's debates with the Leader of the House
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberMy noble friend Lord Strathclyde is focusing only on secondary legislation, as I have already described. The other groups to which my noble friend refers are looking at other, separate, matters.
My Lords, following on from the question of the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, does the Leader of the House recognise that it is all very well to say that there is a convention that we should let statutory instruments through without too much difficulty in this House, but that there is a quid pro quo for that—which is that matters which should be considered in primary legislation at the other end of this building should not be introduced by statutory instrument? If the result of the deliberations of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is, “All right, this House loses the right to throw out statutory instruments”, the other side of that equation is that at the other end of the building the Government undertake that major financial issues should not be introduced by statutory instrument but by primary legislation.
In October the Government used the vehicle set out for them to use in the original Act. That is what the Government did and they were at liberty to do so.