---

Coalition Government

My Lords, it is no surprise to me that this debate has been most interesting, given the number of speakers and the quality of noble Lords who have played their part. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, on securing the debate—and for her timing, which was excellent. I do not agree with most of what she said; I do not suppose that that will surprise her. In instances, it was almost a speech of someone who believes that the Labour Party will never again be in government. I shall develop this theme: saying one thing in government and another in opposition—behaving one way in government and another in opposition. I very much welcome the contribution of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bath and Wells. I am one of those who very much appreciates the fact that the right reverend Prelates are prepared to give up a great deal of time to play their part in this House. It is appreciated by the whole House. I also very much welcome the speeches by the noble Lords, Lord Butler of Brockwell and Lord Hennessey, and my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth. It may surprise the noble Baroness, but I also very much enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. He raised some extremely important issues to which I shall try to return. I could not help but smile at the great sincerity with which the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, demands humility from this Government. He was a supporter for so long of a Government who left behind one of the greatest financial messes that this country has ever seen—who brought the country to the brink of bankruptcy with this massive deficit. The noble Lord, Lord Plant, was interesting because he talked about the relationship between government and the people under the previous Government. The previous Government taxed their people, overspent, overborrowed and beggared the people. Worst of all, they wasted the people’s money on their own schemes. That is why the next few years are going to be so difficult in this country. An apology might have been appreciated early on in this new Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Butler, reminded us of the constitutional hunger of Mr Blair’s Government. I wrote down, from memory, a few of them: the Bank of England, Scotland and Wales, regional governments, London governments, and, of course, House of Lords reform—all without thought, without plan, and without conclusion still. Mr Blair said the House of Lords was an affront to democracy. If it was that then, what is it now after 13 years of their Government—the abolition of the Lord Chancellor, the creation of a new Supreme Court, locking people up without charge? Again, there is no apology, not even for the disgrace of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill. Noble Lords opposite talking about humility really should take great care to ever take part in a constitutional Bill again. And I mock those noble Lords who voted happily for that Bill in the House of Commons and then in the House of Lords pontificate and lecture us about constitutional Bills. I mock them. What else? Ah, the conventions in this House. Let me turn to the Hunt report. The Hunt of the Hunt report is not my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral, but the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. He suggested—this is Labour Party policy—that it is wrong that a Bill can potentially be in jeopardy because some Peers within the rules of the House can threaten to spend endless time debating a particular Bill. What on earth have noble Lords opposite been doing over the last few weeks? I will return to that. We are seeing a genuine parliamentary tragedy unfolding before our eyes in this House; a wholesale breaking of the conventions, including those on secondary legislation. The noble Baroness, Lady Symons, mentioned that and sought a justification for breaking a convention that has withstood the test of time, and several Oppositions, for the last 35 years—broken last month only to be broken again on Monday. These are important conventions that have governed the relationship between the Labour Party and the Conservative Party; no warning, no criteria, just broken. It has been a calm debate and it is important that it should be. I very much welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Hennessey, said about new conventions. It does not really matter what they are called. It may be too late for that. We may have gone beyond the time for conventions, because conventions require self-discipline. They require people who give their agreement to behave in a particular way. Once that behaviour has been broken, it is very difficult to put the conventions back together again. The other theme is the question of the mandate, mentioned by the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition and the noble Baroness, Lady Symons and one or two others. It is always good to have this coupled with the call that we should consult the people more and find out what is going on. The coalition, it is said, has no mandate and no legitimacy for its constitutional reforms. No one voted for it. We are proposing to give the public a say on 5 May on the voting system for elections to the House of Commons. It is noble Lords on the Benches opposite who are standing in the way of that. What mandate do noble Lords on the Benches opposite have for the stance that they have chosen? Do they really believe that the public will thank them for denying them the opportunity to have their say? While we are on the case of mandates—this wonderful new constitutional convention—what mandate did Mr Gordon Brown have as Prime Minister? Who voted for any of the things he did according to noble Lords opposite? My view of a mandate is that people elect Members of the House of Commons and whoever commands the confidence of the House of Commons governs. That is the mandate that I understand. Coalition Governments, national Governments, and minority Governments are more common than usually thought. In the 20th century, five elections produced a hung Parliament, albeit only one of them post-war, that of February 1974. Both James Callaghan and John Major saw their parliamentary majorities eroded over the course of a Parliament. In the case of the former, that led to the Lib-Lab pact and, of course, there were coalition Governments: the national Government of 1931 to 1940 and the two wartime Governments. Since the Second World War, we have witnessed the rise of a strong third party in the Liberal Democrats and their predecessors and the emergence of strong nationalist parties in Scotland and Wales. In addition, in Northern Ireland, there are a number of parties that are represented at Westminster. Indeed, the experience in the devolved Administrations has given further experience of the workings of coalitions, particularly in Scotland, where we initially had the experience of a formal coalition commanding a majority in the Scottish Parliament and have more recently had single-party minority rule. So this coalition Government is not unprecedented, and the challenges that have been posed to our constitution and to Parliament have, I believe, been met successfully. There are two areas I wish to address where the effects of a coalition Government would have been expected to have been felt: on the operation of the Executive and on the operation of Parliament. I believe that the strength and resilience of our constitution and the parliamentary system have been evident. The constitution has not had to change to accommodate coalition government. Our institutions were well prepared to address the situation and to respond appropriately, effectively and pragmatically. In the first area, looking at the Executive, there has had to be some adjustment and accommodation. However, in the second area, that of Parliament, there has been minimal need for change. There are many benefits of having a flexible, uncodified constitution that can evolve over time. However, it is also important that there is a shared understanding of the constitutional rules and conventions that apply. That is why, in February 2010, the Cabinet Office published a draft chapter of the Cabinet manual on elections and government formation. The chapter set out the key principles that would apply following a hung Parliament, including the role of the Sovereign, the Prime Minister, the political parties and the Civil Service. In particular, it stated that it was for the political parties to determine the shape of the Government and that the Sovereign would not expect to be involved in such discussions; that the incumbent Prime Minister was expected to remain in post until there was a clear alternative; and that the Civil Service, with the authorisation of the Prime Minister, could offer support for any negotiations between the political parties. That offer of support was taken up by a number of parties in the negotiations that followed the election in May 2010. My noble friend Lord Greaves suggested that in future we should take longer to form a Government. Given public expectations, media interest and economic pressures, those involved in the process this year were very aware that a swift resolution was needed and that there was a real risk that the markets would react if negotiations went on for a longer period. I recognise that the length of time it took to form a Government in May was much quicker than elsewhere in Europe and, indeed, it is possible that in future the negotiation period might be longer, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Owen, said, it was right to stabilise the markets. He said that that was a success. I know he does not agree with everything else the coalition has done and that he regrets the fact that proper proportional representation is not an option in the referendum, but there is a reason for that, which is that there is no majority for PR in the House of Commons or, I suspect, in this House. Setting out the key principles in advance of the election in the draft Cabinet manual helped to reduce uncertainty for those involved in the process of government formation. It also made the rules and conventions more transparent and helped to inform the media and members of the public. The chapter ““Elections and government formation”” has since been amended. The principles set out in the February draft still hold true, but the text has been developed following consideration of the recommendations made by the House of Commons Justice Committee and to reflect the experience of the most recent election. We have also given parliamentarians and other experts a further opportunity to lend their experience and knowledge in developing the final Cabinet manual. A draft of the full Cabinet manual was published on 14 December, which allows three months for comment. The noble Baroness, Lady Symons, my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth and others asked for a debate on the manual, but there is no reason why we should debate it. As I said, the draft manual is published for public consultation and the Government would very much welcome views on the draft manual from either House and anybody with an interest, as the consultation ends on 8 March 2011. The noble Baroness also asked about its status. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, thinks that it is probably the first draft of a written constitution, although I may have misunderstood him. He is shaking his head vigorously. I am very glad that I misheard him, because the Government have no plans to codify the constitutional conventions in operation in the UK or to bring forward proposals for the adoption of a codified constitution in the UK. Anyone who reads the document will see that it is an overview of the rules and conventions that relate to the work of the Cabinet. The principle of collective agreement binds the members of the Government in the usual way. However, there are some areas in the coalition agreement where that is explicitly set aside, not least in relation to the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill that is currently before the House, where the principle will not apply in relation to the positions that the two political parties may take during the referendum campaign. We are one Government, but we respect that the coalition contains two political parties that will take different positions on certain issues. These arrangements and the different parts of the Cabinet system are working together effectively to promote collective government, to manage government business and priorities and to protect the principles set out in the coalition agreement. A concern was expressed by a number of noble Lords about whether and how the coalition Government may affect the more fundamental constitutional conventions governing this place, especially the Salisbury/Addison convention. Let me be clear that I do not believe that any of the conventions governing the relationship between the two Houses has been called into question by the coalition itself. Many people—not least the most recent Joint Committee on Conventions—have considered the possibility that one day there might be a coalition Government. They have not concluded that this would presage a constitutional crisis. Instead, they have tended to consider maturely and reach the conclusion that our current constitutional conventions are well thought-out and easily robust enough to withstand the entirely predictable possibility that government might consist of not one party but two or, perhaps in the future, even more parties. The present Government are the first coalition Government since the Salisbury convention was formulated in its classic form. Inevitably, there are some stresses within the system. The Salisbury convention applies to manifesto Bills, but this Government did not contest the election as a single party under a single manifesto. However, the Government, like all others, were formed and are sustained on the basis of the confidence of the House of Commons. This confidence has been secured on the basis of a programme set out in the coalition agreement. Like any Government, we have brought forward some measures that were in the manifesto and some that were not. So the Salisbury convention continues to apply, although perhaps it is not as often relevant as when a single party wins a majority. It is difficult now to determine what precisely constitutes a manifesto Bill but, then again, it was ever thus. I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, who said that he did not think that the Salisbury convention had much meaning any more. I disagree with him and incline more towards the view of the noble Lord, Lord Hennessey, and my noble friend Lord Norton. The Salisbury convention was only ever one manifestation of the relationship between the two Houses, which is based, as we all know, on the primacy of the other place. We in this House do not routinely oppose government legislation, whether or not it derives from a manifesto. That much was made clear by the Joint Committee in 2006, so it is not special pleading by a coalition Government. So many noble Lords on all sides of the House cling dearly to the idea that we are a revising House—a House of scrutiny, not of opposition—although you would be hard-pressed to believe that when looking at the antics in the House in the past few days. All of us on this side of the House are fond of reminding those opposite what the last Lord Chancellor, Jack Straw, said in 2006. He said that, "““if any coalition or arrangement as in 1977 gains the support of the democratically elected House and endorsed by a motion of confidence then the programme for which they gain that endorsement should be respected by this House””—" the House of Lords. That was the previous Government’s understanding of the constitutional convention regarding coalitions. The noble Lord, Lord Wills, asked about the working group on the constitution. I must say that I had no idea about this great body, but I have made inquiries and I understand that the previous Government announced that they would set up such a body to look at law and the relationships between the state and citizen as well as what principles should be deemed constitutional. I also understand that the group was never in fact convened and did not publish any reports or any other documents, so I suspect that it still languishes in the bottom drawer of somebody’s desk. We have no plans at this stage to resurrect it. Another curious theme, which I think explains an awful lot about the attitude of the Labour Party that has developed over the past few months, was the idea that the coalition has a majority in this House. That is a fundamental misunderstanding between the two sides of the House. The noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, got it right. I shall not explain it now, but if any noble Lord would like a lesson in mathematics we can look at the numbers and go through them to see whether the coalition has any more of a majority than the Labour Party had. It is a great mistake to ignore the Cross Benches, and I do not know why noble Lords opposite do that. The example of the coalition losing a Division yesterday is a case in point. As well as the Cross Benches, there are Members of the DUP, the UUP and even UKIP. It would be very unwise to discount that when considering the arithmetic of this House. You have only to look at the progress of the Public Bodies Bill—let us leave aside the controversy of the AV Bill. My noble friend said that that was the right way to do things, and he is correct. An agreement was struck on the timing, and there was no problem there; that is the way in which we behave, and quite rightly. The noble Baroness said that there should be a referendum on the future of Lords reform. That is the first time that we have heard of that. In Labour’s last manifesto, it took an awful long time to get there. My noble friend Lord Norton said that there should be a debate in the House on how consideration of Bills of constitutional significance should take place. I think that we should have debates from time to time on these issues, and we should also have debates with the House of Commons about how constitutional Bills are taken through. I hope that my noble friend will write to his and my noble friend Lord Goodlad, who is looking at the working practices of this House. Again, that is a very timely review of how we are doing things, when the House has broken with so many of its conventions.