Monitor 49 Constitution Unit Newsletter | October 2011 Clegg delivers for the Conservatives Constitutional reform is generally believed to be the Liberal The table shows where a commitment in the Programme for Democrats’ contribution to the coalition government’s agenda. Government came from: the Lib Dem manifesto (col 2), the The Conservatives certainly do not see themselves as constitutional Conservative manifesto (col 3), or both. Of the 14 items listed, reformers. But before the election their reform agenda was as 10 were in the Conservative manifesto, and eight in the Lib extensive as the Liberal Democrats: see the Unit’s Briefing 148 Dem manifesto. on The Conservative Agenda for Constitutional Reform. Column 4 headed Result indicates whether the commitment is likely Nick Clegg said last May that one reason for joining the coalition was to be delivered or not. This requires some educated guesswork, and to deliver the Lib Dems’ long-held plans for constitutional reform. In not everyone will agree with the forecasts. Those who disagree can government he leads on the whole constitutional reform programme. insert their own, to see if they come to a different overall conclusion. But early analysis suggests that at the end of this government, Clegg The provisional analysis of this scorecard suggests that at the end of will have delivered more of the Conservative package of constitutional this Parliament Nick Clegg will have delivered six of the Conservative reforms than his own. In particular, he has not succeeded on the AV commitments for constitutional reform, but only four of his own. He referendum and is unlikely to accomplish Lords reform, the Lib Dems’ will get little credit from the Conservatives for this, because they do two biggest priorities. not see themselves as constitutional reformers. The risk is that he will be damned by his own side for his failures, and ignored by the The analysis is in Table 1 below and shows the main constitutional Conservatives for his successes. reform items in the coalition’s Programme for Government. It is inevitably a crude score card, listing all the reforms as if they were Table 1. Constitutional reforms in the Coalition Programme for equal, when some are clearly more important than others. Government, and their origins Programme for Government LD C Result Lib Dem manifesto Conservative manifesto Introduce proportional voting system, Referendum on AV x Retain first past the post • preferably STV Reduce House of Commons to √ Reduce to 500 MPs if elected by STV Reduce to 585 MPs 600 MPs • • Introduce referendum on further Give Welsh Assembly primary Will not stand in the way of Welsh √ Welsh devolution • • legislative powers referendum on further legislative powers Implement Calman Commission Implement Calman on new powers to √ White Paper on how to deal with Calman in Scotland • • Scotland Make royal prerogative subject to greater Fixed term parliaments √ Fixed term parliaments • parliamentary control Legislate so that future treaties are Amend ECA 1972 so that future Treaties √ subject to ‘referendum lock’ • subject to referendum lock Hold referendums on elected Give citizens in England’s 12 largest cities √ mayors in 12 largest English cities • chance of having an elected mayor Wholly or mainly elected second Build consensus for a mainly elected x Elected House of Lords chamber • • second chamber Replace Human Rights Act with Commission on British bill of rights x Protect the Human Rights Act • • UK bill of rights Commission on West Lothian x English votes on English laws Question • Power of recall in the event of Power of recall triggered by proven Right of recall of MPs √ • • serious wrongdoing serious wrongdoing 200 all postal primaries • x All postal primaries Petitions to force issues onto Petitions to force issues √ Parliament’s agenda • onto Parliament’s agenda Seek agreement on comprehensive Cap donations at £10k, limit spending Reform of party funding x • • reform to include donations cap through electoral cycle Key: • = manifesto commitment fully incorporated into Programme for Government • = manifesto commitment only partially incorporated √ = likely to be delivered X = unlikely to be delivered. Monitor 49 | Constitution Unit Newsletter | October 2011 | ISSN 1465–4377 | Page 2 welcomed by peers while others, such as giving greater control to the PARLIAMENT chair in debates, were more controversial. Some proposals, including establishment of a legislative standards committee, received a somewhat lukewarm government response. Lord Strathclyde promised that the chamber would have ‘the chance to approve or reject proposals for implementing a range of the group’s recommendations... Government plans for Lords reform at the earliest available opportunity’, once the Procedure Committee and other committees have considered the details. Officially, following the publication of the White Paper and draft bill in May, Lords reform is proceeding smoothly, with a bill to be Election of New Lord Speaker introduced next year. The proposal is to move to a largely or wholly elected chamber, chosen by proportional representation. However, Baroness Hayman’s five-year term of office as Lord Speaker has the obstacles to this occurring remain significant (as discussed in ended, and elections were held for her replacement. There were Monitor 48). The White Paper and bill were debated in both chambers six candidates, with the result announced on 18 July. Lord Goodlad in June (in the Lords on 21 and 22, in the Commons on 27), and (Conservative) had initially been considered a frontrunner, but the came in for heavy criticism. Numerous objections were raised in both election was won by Baroness D’Souza (Crossbench). She had only chambers, by representatives of all parties and none, with only a weeks before ended her four-year stint as convener of the Crossbench small number of supportive speeches. Key issues include whether peers. The new Crossbench convener is Lord Laming. the chamber should be 80% or 100% elected, whether 15 year non- At a hustings meeting organised by the Hansard Society, all renewable terms are appropriate, and whether such a large change candidates for Lord Speaker were cautious about proposals for should be subject to a referendum (which is not currently proposed). reforming working practices; they expressed a desire to retain ‘self- But the biggest issue of all was the likely effect on the balance of regulation’ and showed a lack of enthusiasm for giving the Lord powers between the two chambers. Clause 2 of the bill, which states Speaker more powers. Ultimately, as all candidates emphasised, that ‘Nothing in the provisions of this Act... affects the primacy of the it will be for members of the chamber to decide these matters. House of Commons... or the conventions governing the relationship between the two Houses’ has already become somewhat notorious. NAO report on IPSA Not only is it impossible to legislate meaningfully for such a matter, but the claim that the relationship will remain unchanged is widely On 7 July the National Audit Office published a report into the questioned. Some believe that changes to the chamber’s membership operation of the new Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority will strengthen it vis-à-vis the Commons, and welcome this: they (IPSA), which was created following the MPs’ expenses scandal. include Lords leader Lord Strathclyde, who stated this repeatedly in Ever since its establishment IPSA has been subjected to significant the chamber when the proposals were announced on 17 May. Some, criticism, particularly from MPs and their staff. The NAO gave a including the minister responsible for the bill, Nick Clegg, claim that mixed scorecard, congratulating IPSA for getting up and running so the relationship will remain unchanged. Many others anticipate a quickly, and for providing a full service to MPs after May 2010, but strengthening, but consider this undesirable. suggesting that the procedures in place are onerous for MPs and that more should be done to address this. It recommended that IPSA These will all be issues closely examined by the parliamentary joint should work with the parliamentary authorities to try and minimise the committee on the bill, which was established in July. It comprises inconvenience and cost to MPs of the existing scheme. 13 peers and 13 MPs, and will be chaired by former (Labour) Lords leader, Lord Richard. The committee has initially been given until Process of Constitutional Change the end of February to report, but is widely expected to ask for more time. It will certainly have a lot to consider, and has invited In July the Lords Constitution Committee published their report on the written submissions, ideally by 12 October. Notable members of the Process of Constitutional Change, following a six-month inquiry. The committee include constitutional academics Lord (Philip) Norton of report says it is not acceptable for the UK to have no agreed process Louth, and Lord (Peter) Hennessy of Nympsfield. A bill may or may for constitutional change when the constitution is the foundation not be included in the Queen’s speech in May 2012. upon which law and government are built. The government should not be able to ‘pick and choose’ what processes apply in different Internal Lords reforms debated cases. Constitutional legislation should meet the highest standards of consultation, consideration and scrutiny. Internal reforms of the Lords working practices may have a better prospect of success, and there have now been two reports by two The report sets out a ‘comprehensive package’ of processes which separate Leader’s Groups, chaired by Lord Hunt of Wirral (on options governments should follow to ensure it meets these standards, for retirement), and Lord Goodlad (on working practices more widely), including publishing green and white papers and draft bills. respectively. These were outlined in Monitors 47 and 48. The Hunt The committee adds that the minister responsible for initiating report proposed that members should be able voluntarily to retire constitutional change should explain to Parliament the processes used from the chamber.