Proposals would see House of Lords lose power to block secondary legislation

The Prime Minister, David Cameron, commissioned a review by Lord Strathclyde that recommends the House of Commons be given the final decision over secondary legislation.

MPs would ultimately have the final say on whether a measure passes, with the House of Lords only having the power to ask the Commons to re-think their decision.

The review also looked at more radical options such as bypassing the House of Lords entirely when it comes to secondary legislation.

Lord Strathclyde said: “In my review, I have looked carefully at the history and current practice of the House of Lords as it regards secondary legislation and financial matters and I have spoken to a wide range of parliamentarians.

“I believe that my recommendations strike the right balance between preserving the vital role of the House of Lords in scrutinising legislation, and enabling the elected House of Commons to have a decisive role on statutory instruments.”

Secondary legislation is intended for simple measures in contrast to complex items dealt with by means of primary legislation.

Statutory instruments are given less scrutiny than primary legislation and it is often said that governments use the mechanism for their passage to introduce legislation that should be subject to greater scrutiny.

The proposals were criticised by Graham Allen, chair of the Commons’ Political And Constitutional Reform Committee.

He said: “The casual, undemocratic way in which these proposals have been produced is completely inappropriate to the gravity of the matters it addresses. Furthermore, we cannot treat this particular constitutional issue in isolation from others.

“If the problem with the Lords blocking measures emerging from the Commons is that the Commons is elected and the Lords is not, why are we not being provided with the option of an elected second chamber?”

Mr Cameron asked Lord Strathclyde to produce the plans after peers blocked a planned £4 billion reduction in tax credits, which he regarded as interference in financial matters and an indication the two houses’ relationship needs to be re-established.