Sometimes the language of the House is obscure if not downright misleading. Yesterday there was much talk of a “Henry VIII clause” in the Banking Bill, which was having its Third Reading yesterday afternoon. It was expected we would vote on it…was it about how many wives a peer can have? Turned out not. A Henry VIII clause (I had to go the library to look it up) was defined by a House of Lords Select Committee on the Scrutiny of Delegated Powers 1992-93 as: a provision in a Bill which enables primary legislation to be amended or repealed by subordinate legislation, with or without further Parliamentary scrutiny. [HL 57 1992-93, para 10]. The clauses were so named from the Statute of Proclamations 1539, which gave King Henry VIII power to legislate by proclamation. In the Banking Bill the Henry VIII’ Clause in question was Clause 75 giving the Treasury power to make retrospective orders “where desirable” as well as “where necessary”.
Clearly a great deal of negotiation went on behind the scenes with the Constitution Committee, Ministers and opposition since by the time I was listening to the debate in the Chamber it was clear that the clause had been amended to everyone’s satisfaction. So third reading (that is the last debate where there is a chance to amend a bill before it goes back to the Commons for their final scrutiny) passed off without a hitch.
I always find phrases like ‘everyone’s satisfaction’ and (in the US context) ‘bipartisan agreement’ make me slightly nervous that it’s just a stitch up that suits the major parties and when/if it all unwinds later the government can do as they please and parliament can do nothing about it.
There was a Donoughmore Committee in 1932 that considered these matters and recommended that they should only be used for enabling legislation to bring an act in effect. Crucially that such clauses should be time limited to one year. In more modern times it has generally been the practice to require affirmative resolutions in both houses. If affirmative resolutions nor a time limit is included when they are added to a bill then frankly parliament only has itself to blame when the inevitable occurs and the clauses are used to do things not intended or envisaged.
Going by Lord Goodlad’s speech in the debate at http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?gid=2009-02-09a.973.0 it certainly wasn’t amended to everyone’s satisfaction.
Reading this blog does give some insight into how the country is governed.
But it frequently seems like you need a glossary to do so.
It may not surprise those here to learn that I love little factoids like this.
Matthew: Lord Goodlad’s speech did make me chuckle at one point, though rather in the manner of a risqué joke, you can’t quite decide whether it is funny/shocking or profoundly depressing.
“The Front Benches of the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrat Party were silent on the matter, which is, according to taste, welcome, disgraceful or sinister.”
Sinister can only refer to the left, surely?
Sinister normally only refers to the left in heraldry. Otherwise it’s much more portending evil. On the former theme, some time back Lord Norton was kind enough to post a picture of his achievement of arms and explain his design choices. But I don’t think any of the other peers posting have. Any takers?
On the language of the house, I’d hate to see it all be ‘modernised’ – that’s a sinister word 🙂 – it’s part of the charm of old things. I remember in another context listening to a minster implying changing (among other things) court cases from ‘R -v- defendant’ to ‘The Queen -v- defendant’ modernised the justice system. As though the defendant cared 8-|
I am concerned that the language used by legislators was so opaque that a member could not follow it until after the discussion. I think that this is an argument in favour of, if not modernising the House of Lords, providing all members with a House of Lords dictionary.