Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

HoL and money bills

Re: HoL and money bills

Postby Hairyloon » Fri Oct 30, 2015 9:47 am

atticus wrote:
Hairyloon wrote:
Slartibartfast wrote:You are being pedantic, HL.

In what way? .
In your own unique, frustrating and irritating way.

If you would like to be more specific, then I may try to be less irritating.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10098
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: HoL and money bills

Postby theycantdothat » Sun Nov 01, 2015 8:09 am

I have just noticed that section 21(9) of the HA 1988 says:

A statutory instrument containing regulations made under subsection (8) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament

So the idea that the HoL cannot interfere with anything other than Acts cannot be entirely correct.
theycantdothat
 
Posts: 1166
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 7:36 pm

Re: HoL and money bills

Postby Smouldering Stoat » Sun Nov 01, 2015 8:23 am

Indeed, and whichever Act these Regulations are being made under presumably contains a similar provision. And regulations made under the Defamation Act 2013 must be approved by both Houses (rather than being subject to annulment). The Act could presumably have contained a similar provision but restricted to the Commons, and perhaps in future the Government will do so.

Nevertheless by convention their Lordships use the power sparingly.
Smouldering Stoat
 
Posts: 6352
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:31 pm
Location: Near the Creek.

Re: HoL and money bills

Postby dls » Sun Nov 01, 2015 9:14 am

Nevertheless by convention their Lordships use the power sparingly.


Then this is not a breach.
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12267
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Re: HoL and money bills

Postby Smouldering Stoat » Sun Nov 01, 2015 9:24 am

It may or may not be, depending upon whether these are the circumstances under which that power ought to be used. Clearly it is not unprecedented, as the precedents are set out above. Equally clearly, there are not many precedents so this is something which the Lords almost never do.

Obviously the Lords have the power to do what they have done; we wouldn't be having this discussion otherwise.
Smouldering Stoat
 
Posts: 6352
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:31 pm
Location: Near the Creek.

Re: HoL and money bills

Postby Hairyloon » Sun Nov 01, 2015 10:59 am

dls wrote:
Nevertheless by convention their Lordships use the power sparingly.


Then this is not a breach.

That was what I said.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10098
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: HoL and money bills

Postby Smouldering Stoat » Sun Nov 01, 2015 11:47 am

It is a constitutional convention that the Lords do not interfere in secondary legislation. The House of Commons Library Research Paper discusses this at length, and lists the exceptions to the general rule.

We would not be having this discussion if the Lords were not empowered to do as they have done, but that power is fettered by constitutional convention. Conventions are rules of our constitution. Perhaps the point would be easier to understand if we were to call them something that sounded a bit less woolly, but we are stuck with it. By convention the Queen accepts the advice of an outgoing Prime Minister as to who the Queen should send for to be his successor. By convention the Queen gives Royal Assent to Bills passed by both Houses of Parliament. By convention the Lords do not intervene in secondary legislation, subject to a limited number of exceptions.
Smouldering Stoat
 
Posts: 6352
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:31 pm
Location: Near the Creek.

Re: HoL and money bills

Postby Hairyloon » Sun Nov 01, 2015 11:59 am

Smouldering Stoat wrote:It is a constitutional convention that the Lords do not interfere in secondary legislation.

No, it is constitutional convention that the Lords do not often interfere in secondary legislation.
The House of Commons Library Research Paper discusses this at length, and lists the exceptions to the general rule.

No, The House of Commons Library Research Paper discusses this at length, and lists some of the exceptions to the general rule.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10098
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: HoL and money bills

Postby atticus » Sun Nov 01, 2015 12:32 pm

What constitutes "often" for this purpose?
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19884
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: HoL and money bills

Postby theycantdothat » Sun Nov 01, 2015 5:03 pm

A convention that you do not do so something often? Is it not implicit in the word convention that it does not have the force of law?
theycantdothat
 
Posts: 1166
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 7:36 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Constitutional Law

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest