AV referendum goes ahead but the creation of the coalition has altered politics in the Lords

The creation of the coalition has changed politics in many unexpected ways—not least over relations between the Houses of Commons and the Lords. Existing conventions were challenged during the marathon passage of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, now Act, which became law just before midnight after 24 days in the Lords, and 10 in the Commons. So we will have a referendum on May 5 on whether to change from a first-past-the-post to the alternative vote system of electing MPs, while the number of MPs is to be cut from 650 to 600 and the method of redrawing boundaries to be changed.  Apart from many smaller amendments, the only change of substance that the Isle of Wight will have two MPs for itself, and not be partly joined to the mainland.

The Salisbury-Addison question is still in dispute

Since the late 1940s, the Lords has respected a doctrine of the mandate known as the Salisbury-Addison convention whereby peers neither vote against a bill at second reading which has been in the governing party’s manifesto, nor approve wrecking amendments. The convention, or agreement, arose when the Attlee Government  had only a few peers. This view has been disputed over the years but was reaffirmed by a Joint Committee on Conventions in  2006, which went further and pointed to the ‘emergence in recent years of a practice that the Lords will usually give a second reading to any government bill, whether based on the manifesto or not’. However, the creation of the coalition has altered the debate. The Conservative and Liberal Democrat manifestoes have been superseded by the coalition agreement, which, by definition, was not approved by voters. So some leading peers have argued that the Lords should treat as manifesto bills only those put forward in the manifestoes of both parties. The AV part of the new Act appeared in neither. Moreover, the convention has been seen—since the removal of most of the hereditary peers in 1999- as being an essential safeguard when no single party, including the Government, has a working majority. But the Tories and Lib Dems  now have a clear majority over Labour, leaving aside the crossbenchers who do not vote as a bloc.

Closure motions and high emotions

The Lords works by consensus with no formal timetabling or guillotine motions. But with the existing conventions challenged, alleged Labour filibustering at some stages of the committee stage was met by the use of closure motions ending debate on certain amendments. Such motions are described as ‘a most exceptional procedure’ in the Lords guidance on procedure, the ‘Companion’. These events stirred up high emotions with talk of the Government having to impose a fixed timetable for the whole bill and even curtailing the revising powers of the Lords. The Government was operating to a tight timetable of getting the bill into law by this week to allow sufficient time for campaigning for a May 5 referendum under Electoral Commission guidelines. In the event, tempers cooled, but the underlying issues remain.

The case for a review

There is clearly now a case for a review of Salisbury-Addison. Among the principles worth considering are that the Lords should return any government bill to the Commons within 60 parliamentary days ( as suggested by both the 1968 White Paper on Lords reform and a Labour peers group in 2004).  As a corollary, the allocation of time on bills, and on other business, should be determined by a Business Committee of all groups and backbenchers, as is already proposed for the Commons in 2013. This would balance the legitimate rights of the government- whether single party or coalition- to secure its business on the basis of the will of the Commons and the rights of the Lords in scrutinising, amending and, from time to time, asking MPs to think again.