While the big rebellion over the 42 day lock-up was in progress in the Commons on Wednesday, we were having an equally interesting debate about Britain’s role in Europe in the Lords.
The big difference between the two Houses – as I see it, having served in both – is the extent to which Peers regularly break away from party lines. Since the Government has no automatic majority in the Lords, this creates a permanent atmosphere of genuine discussion, exchange of views across party boundaries and the need for effective persuasion. Ministers can neither browbeat supporters nor bribe opponents to vote for them. MPs should take note.
Our debate, therefore, was remarkable for the formidable contributions of the most senior former Conservative Ministers who spoke and voted against their party’s European policy. Lord (Geoffrey) Howe, Lord (Leon) Brittan and Lord (Chris) Patten all made powerful speeches against their front bench. Baroness Thatcher sat impassively listening to them as her own previous devastating attack on the use of a referendum was quoted back to her. These three were joined by several other notable Conservatives, including Lord (Michael) Heseltine, voting in the Government lobby. I think there were eight in all. A handful of Labour Peers, and just one Liberal Democrat, went the other way.
The fascinating fact is that this Conservative “rebellion”, by the most prominent of their Peers, even when their Whips were working over-time to hassle in their troops to vote, is really not remarkable. Certainly it has not been remarked upon by the media. It is accepted that – in the Lords – Members think for themselves.
Oh, and the combined forces of the Labour, Liberal Democrat, Crossbencher and Conservative realists won the vote by 280 to 218.
In David Davis’ resignation speech, he claimed that there is a question of legality on whether the gvt can use the Parliament Act to push this Bill through.
Can you clarify the legal position, please?
Sorry, I should have added that the question arises because the 42 day issue was not in the manifesto.
As far as I’m aware there’s no legal problem with using the Parliament Act next term to push through the bill containing the 42 days detention provisions.
The reference to an inclusion in the manifesto refers to the Salisbury Convention, which holds that any policy that was in the party manifesto of the elected government and which has been approved by the Commons should not be blocked by the House of Lords. This is not legally binding, but any contravention of this understanding would have significant constitutional ramifications that could well lead to the Commons amending the Parliament Act.
But in this instance it does not apply, as 42 days was not mentioned in the 2005 Labour manifesto.
The Salisbury Convention has fallen into abeyance since the expulsion of most of the hereditaries, has it not?
I do not see any bar on the Government from using the Parliament Act if it chose, though like many things in the British system it could be a double-edged sword. Considering how many Labour peers are defying their party whip over the 42-day motion, they’d effectively be silencing their own party. This would not go down well in either House.
If it was a clear party division, with Tories opposed and Labour in favour, it would be easier. But when opposition dominates all sides, it is even more controversial than it normally would be.
So a referendum is good enough when we are being duped to go into Europe, but not when we have the option to reduce the influence over our country by Brussels ? Talk about a one-way street…
Was it ever thus…
I think the Salisbury Convention holds on the basis that the Lords remain unelected (ignoring the change in how most of them got there) and therefore should not overrule the will of the elected chamber on those policies that the population clearly endorsed from the winning party’s manifesto.
David Davis did indeed say the ‘legal basis is uncertain to say the least’ as to whether the Government could use the Parliament Acts (there are two – 1911 and 1949). I’m not sure on what basis he makes that claim, since the Acts allow the Commons to get its way after one year’s delay. There are no exceptions defined in law for legislation that has, or has not, been promised in a manifesto – though Davis is right to say that the 42 day measure did not feature in Labour’s 2005 manifesto.
The Salisbury-Addison convention does suggest that laws promised in the manifesto of a party which has just won a general election should not be defeated (at least not in perpetuity) by the Lords. However, the convention has weakened since the House was reformed in 1999, and some Peers even claimed to help the Government to keep to its own manifesto when they voted on ID cards legislation. The manifesto promised a voluntary scheme, the Government proposed a compulsory one, and the Lords amended the Bill to make ID cards voluntary – at least in the first instance. But that is another story…
A more detailed exposition of the Salisbury-Addison convention, and the others which govern the relationship between the two houses can be found in the Joint Committee on Conventions report of 2006. I served on that committee and, as an ignorant layman, learnt much about the relationship between the Commons and the Lords. Our conclusion was that there’d be no point in having a second chamber of Parliament if it could never say no.
However, for a much more erudite and comprehensive explanation, you may have to wait for a comment from Professor Lord Norton!
As more responsibility gets taken over by the European parliament, surely the local parliaments responsibilities change. From lawmakers it becomes more of an administrative function. Surely the job requirements, and pay scales should change in accordance. Is this being discussed at all?