Oh Lordy |

Thursday 12th May 2011 | 09:36

Oh Lordy

Last night's Lords defeat for the Coaliiton's policing bill underlines just how unruly the Upper Chamber can be.

Lord Knight wrote in the early hours of how the vote itself was followed by scenes of chaos as ministers didn't quite realise the consequences of the gutting of a key section of the bill.

But it looks to me that perhaps the best exchange was this one:

Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, can we just have some clarity from the noble Lord the Leader? I am sorry to prolong this...but can the noble Lord the Leader explain to the House why the government Front Bench has permitted us to debate an amendment that potentially no one in this House understands?

We are talking about transitional arrangements, which are a perfectly valid area of debate, but we do not know what we are transitioning from or to. Under those circumstances, why has the government Front Bench allowed the debate? We are a self-regulating House. If the powers were invested in the Lord Speaker, no doubt we would have a ruling, which we would all of course at once obey. Under these circumstances, the noble Lord has to tell the House how he has reached his decision, and we have to understand it.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords.. this will not be the first time that the House has debated an issue that it does not know anything about...

Classic dry wit from Strathclyde.

Yet there is a wider issue here. The Lib Dem peers finally flexing their muscles with a defeat of a key Coalition Agreement policy (although some Lib Dem activists may wonder why they chose to rebel on Robocops but not on tuition fees, but that's for another day).

But so too are Tory peers, many of whom are furious about Clegg's plans to chop their numbers - a fury that is likely to be worsened by today's Guardian story that he wants a 'lottery' to cull them. No wonder Mark Pritchard warned on PolHome this week that there could be 'guerilla' action by Tory peers that could threaten other bits of Government business.

There is also the bigger constitutional problem of whether the Parliament Act can be used to overturn some Lords defeats. It normally applies to matters which are in a manifesto - but what about bills that were not in both parties' manifestos and only in a Coalition Agreement?

Let's see how Nick Clegg deals with all that at the Political and Constitutional Reform Select Committee today.

I get the feeling the 'vermin in ermine' will attract even more attention as this year goes on...

Leave a comment...

KnowNews

13:23 |
12 May 2011
Recommended
1

How about a reality TV show: "I'm a Lord, try and get me out of here!" headed by "Lord" Sugar pointing to himself and saying "I'm Fired!"

Charles Barry

22:33 |
12 May 2011
0

The Parliament Act(s) applies to all legislation, not just those put in a manifesto. You are confusing this with the Salisbury Convention, which says that the House of Lords will not oppose legislation promised in manifestos. Incidentally enough the Parliament Act does not apply to statutory instruments, which means that if the Lib Dems in the House of Lords had rebelled on tuition fees, that would have been the end of the matter.

Tasmine

12:44 |
19 Oct 2011
0

Very valid, pithy, scucinct, and on point. WD.

Latest from the Waugh Room

Username:
Password:
Remember Me
Forgotten details?

The Live Wire

+What we do...

+Sections

+Explore

+PRO

+On the Go

Find your MP

The Waugh Room

News, gossip and insight from PoliticsHome Editor Paul Waugh