It looks like Nick Clegg’s proposals to reform the House of Lords are about to be consigned to the scrapheap. Although the government won the vote on second reading by 462 to 124, they had to withdraw the program motion that would have set the timetable for the rest of the bill’s journey through the Commons. Labour had promised to vote against it, and with around 100 Tory MPs threatening to rebel, it didn’t stand a chance of passing.
Labour claims that they opposed the program motion because it didn’t allow enough time for debate, but I suspect they’re more interested in exacerbating tensions between the Tories and the Lib Dems. It sure seems to be working.
Now the government is in a terrible pickle. Theoretically, they could just take the bill through the rest of its parliamentary stages without any preset time limits, but their rebel backbenchers would almost certainly end up filibustering it. The government will be all too aware that an earlier attempt at Lords reform, the Parliament (No. 2) Bill of 1968, died because MPs on both sides were able to slow proceedings to a crawl until ministers finally gave up.
If the Lords Reform Bill is going to make any progress, there has to be a program motion. David Cameron has hinted that he won’t negotiate with Labour, which means he’ll have to appease his own backbenchers. The Daily Telegraph has reported that Cameron is offering extra days in committee, or a reduction in the number of elected peers. But since they want the entire bill scrapped, it seems doubtful that those concessions will win him many votes. Interestingly, the Telegraph is also reporting that Cameron has indicated that, if he can’t win over his backbenchers by the end of the summer, he will abandon the entire bill. That would place a huge strain on the coalition, and I suspect a messy divorce would soon follow.
Still, I hope Cameron does come to his senses and jettison this atrocious bill. It really is a dog’s breakfast. Nick Clegg and friends have repeatedly said that they want the second chamber to be more accountable, yet they’ve proposed a body whose members would serve a 15-year term without the possibility of re-election.If you never have to face the voters again, you don’t have to worry about what they think.
The bill also seeks to ensure that the reformed Lords remains subordinate to the Commons. But that convention only really makes sense when the Commons has an electoral mandate and the Lords doesn’t. Requiring an elected chamber to kowtow to another elected chamber is an exercise in constitutional fundamentalism.
The way the government has tried to secure the primacy of the Commons seems poorly thought out. Clause 2 says that the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 will continue to apply to the reformed House of Lords. Those acts are what allow the House of Commons to pass legislation over the Lords’ veto. But they still allow the Lords to delay non-financial legislation for about a year. Until now, the Lords has usually given way in the end, which is why the Parliament Acts have only been used a handful of times. Would an elected chamber be equally self-denying? I doubt it.
Then there is the Salisbury-Addison convention which states that the Lords won’t reject government bills that arise from manifesto commitments. That convention was negotiated back when the House of Lords was filled with hereditary peers, most of whom supported the Conservatives. Why should it apply to an elected chamber whose political complexion reflects the will of the people?
On the plus side, the wrangle over Lords reform has helped convince me that Britain probably needs a written constitution. The idea of effecting constitutional change of this magnitude through a mere Act of Parliament is troubling, to say the least.
Codex Lochianus 