---

Coalition Government

My Lords, there will be different views. I have endeavoured in my remarks so far to put my points as reasonably as the noble Lord has expressed, but I should not have thought that jeering was quite the way we would want to conduct a serious debate of this nature. However, the noble Lord may think differently. The Cunningham committee report stipulates precisely how attempting to vote down secondary legislation can be legitimately done. We stayed wholly and completely within the terms of those provisions, and we did so because they had been explicitly agreed in both Houses. On Bills of constitutional importance, the Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House has taken a very firm line. It says that, "““it is a matter of principle that proposals for major constitutional reform should be subject to prior consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny, unless there are good reasons for departing from this principle””." On the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, it said that: "““Pre-legislative scrutiny and public consultation would have enabled a better assessment of whether the new rules as to equalisation are overly rigid””." It had similar criticisms to make of the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill and the Public Bodies Bill. Those criticisms were pungent and forthright. I just make the point that six members of that committee are coalition Peers. Two are Cross-Benchers, and only four come from the opposition Benches. Coalition is different. This coalition is different from all previous coalitions. It is different in origin. It was different in its formation. It is different in its purpose. And it is different in its effect. We believe that many of the steps the coalition is taking in terms of the constitution and in terms of Parliament are wrong. Wrong in policy terms, yes, of course; but that is not the point that I am arguing. I mean wrong in terms of Parliament and wrong in terms of the constitution. We believe that we are acting properly in defence of the constitution, as this House is meant to do. Do not just take my word for it. Think about what Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg, Member for North East Somerset, and indeed the son of a distinguished Member of your Lordships’ House, said in another place this week in the final stages of the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill. He said of our all night session that, "““it is notable that their lordships sat throughout last night, fulfilling their proper constitutional role of ensuring that a serious constitutional change is properly debated and reviewed””." He said that the Peers were, "““battling for the great British constitution, which has served us extraordinarily well for hundreds of years””.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/1/11; col. 708.]" Let me quote from another very strong Conservative supporter, Mr Simon Heffer of the Daily Telegraph, whose piece on the coalition’s constitutional reforms in December contained, yes, very many sharp criticisms of my own party, but he went on to say that, "““the Coalition has chosen to ignore or contradict parts of the parties' respective manifestos, which raises the question of who actually voted for what we are being offered now; it has chosen to try to gerrymander parliamentary boundaries, without any sort of mandate to do so; it has chosen to try to change the voting system, without any sort of mandate to do so; it has chosen to try to have fixed-term parliaments, without any sort of mandate to do so; and for good measure there will be no Queen's Speech next year, because it would be an inconvenience for the executive””." Not my words, but the words of the Conservative commentator. He also said: "““It seems to regard its creation as some sort of miracle, and a miracle requiring all the rules to be bent, twisted and otherwise mangled to keep it intact””." Discussions on coalitions in British politics cannot avoid including reference to Disraeli’s famous comment. As the first speaker in the debate, I claim the right today to deploy the comment first. In a speech in the Commons on 16 December 1852, Disraeli said: "““But coalitions, although successful, have always found this, that their triumph has been brief. This too I know, that England does not love coalitions””.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/12/1852; col.1666.]" In the fullness of time, we will see how prescient Disraeli was about this coalition in overall terms. But in terms of parliamentary and constitutional impact of the coalition, we on this side of the Chamber would contest that Disraeli’s prediction is already true.