The Conservative-LibDem proposals on constitutional reform could result in anarchy if the coalition broke up. They should take a step back and start again
A disadvantage of Britain’s old one-party government system was that it led to the odd dotty policy. Wheezes, dreamt up by party spokespeople or research staff, often made it into manifestos. Once there, they took on the status of the Ten Commandments for Christians.
The coalition government should try to avoid all this, for the policies of one partner have to pass the scrutiny of the other. And, indeed, in the case of the Conservative/Liberal Democrat pact, some lunacies have been prevented. The LibDems have vetoed the Tory plans for a handout to the country’s richest families through a £1m inheritance tax threshold. The Tories have put LibDem ideas about breaking up banks on the backburner.
But alas, it is the way of the world of politics that one step forward is often accompanied by another step backwards. That is the case with the coalition’s constitutional proposals.
These are not all wrong. For example, the adoption of the proposals by Tony Wright, former chair of the public administration select committee, for Commons reform are very welcome. But others are, though not wrong, half-baked. If only the coalition negotiators had not excluded the civil servants from their talks, the flaws could have been politely pointed out.
One is the requirement for a majority of 55% of MPs to terminate a Parliament before its five-year term is up. An obvious defect of this is that it is just what a coalition government’s proposals should not be: wildly partisan. The Tories could veto a dissolution on their own, but Labour couldn’t, even with the support of all the other parties. But a more serious defect is that it leaves unclear what would happen if the coalition fell apart.
Suppose the LibDems bailed out and no alternative government commanded a majority. We would have a situation that the British constitution is designed to avoid: the Queen would be left without a government. Anyone who sought to hold office would not command a majority in a vote of confidence. They would not be able to control supply – namely, levy taxes. That way anarchy lies. In practice, Parliament would have no choice but to repeal the 55% rule. Then what is the point of it in the first place?
Or take the proposals for Lords’ reform. There is a case for an elected second chamber, and there is a case for an appointed one. What there is no case for is proposals that do not add up. We are told the coalition will appoint 100 peers, to reflect the way the electorate voted at the general election.
We are told that existing life peers will have ‘grandfather’ rights to continue to sit. And yet we are told that a new tranche of elected peers will be arriving, making up eventually more or all of the House. The chamber is frequently full as it is and speeches confined to a few minutes to fit everyone in. If all three legs of the proposal are adhered to, the place will simply burst at the seams.
Or take the proposal to shrink the Commons by 10% while equalising constituency sizes. This is not impossible as long as it does not bother you if some constituencies are geographically enormous or that local authority and parliamentary boundaries are no longer coterminous.
However, it will be the devil to get through Parliament. It is not only that 10% of MPs would lose their seats, but that no MP knows whether they would be one of that 10%. When the new intake wakes up and sees that they have gone to all that trouble for perhaps one five-year term, I predict that the Commons will turn rough.
Constitutional reform, though essential, is best taken in smaller steps. The right approach is to do one thing at a time, then take stock. Then, if it seems sensible, proceed with the next step.
This is how the Labour government implemented its constitutional programme – at least until Tony Blair and Gordon Brown lost their enthusiasm for the whole business. As a result, most of it has stuck. The new coalition should now pull back, think through the changes it would like to make, and then put them into practice at a sensible evolutionary pace.
David Lipsey is a Labour peer
