Guardian: Lords united against Nick Clegg's reform plans

Overwhelming majority of peers believe an elected upper house would be unconstitutional

...is the byline in today's Guardian newspaper, reporting on potential threats to Coalition Lords Reform plans:

The scale of the fight facing Nick Clegg as he tries to reform the House of Lords has been made clear by a newspaper survey revealing an overwhelming majority of peers believe the change would be unconstitutional. The deputy prime minister published a plan last month to replace the Lords with a wholly – or 80% – elected chamber of about 300 peers. They would be elected by thirds every five years and serve single 15-year terms.

Clegg, faced with hostility to the plan and bruised after the failure of the alternative vote referendum campaign, is attempting a more sensitive approach this time, bringing in a package of measures that would appeal to ordinarily sceptical MPs and peers. Because of the intrinsic unpalatability of the proposals, it had been suggested that the government use the Parliament Act to force its will on the upper house should it transpire that peers do not back the change.

While all three main parties committed to the policy in their manifestos, there are large pockets of sceptics beneath the surface.

A survey of peers by The Times newspaper found evidence that the government could face a constitutional crisis if it tried to exert its will. The overwhelming majority of peers believe it would be unconstitutional for the government to create an elected chamber in the face of their objections.

The poll also uncovers deep splits among Clegg's Liberal Democrats despite reform being a flagship party policy. It is known that Lord Steel, the former party leader, and others are opposed, but it had been assumed that the majority of Lib Dem peers supported the current leadership.

Tory leader David Cameron and Labour leader Ed Miliband also face mass revolt by their peers.

The Times sent questionnaires to each of the 789 people entitled to sit in the Lords, although only 400 are regular attenders. A total of 310 responded, in almost precise proportion to how their parties are represented on the red benches. Of those, 80% oppose a wholly or mainly elected upper chamber; 74% believe that it would be unconstitutional to use the Parliament Act; and 81% believe the Lords works well as it is.

Clegg's peers are deeply split, with 64% believing the Lords works well, 46% opposing a large elected element and 54% saying it would be unconstitutional to use the Parliament Act.

The act is used infrequently to permit the Commons to enact measures without the consent of the upper house. It was last used to pass the 2004 Hunting Act.

Party leaders in both chambers will shortly select 26 peers and MPs to sit on a committee to draw up a final proposal. The committee may be chaired by a Labour figure. The government intends to have a bill ready for the Queen's Speech in spring next year.

Riddell: Battle between Parliament and judges only just begun

The conflict over human rights will test our constitution to breaking point, writes Mary Riddell in The Telegraph today (small extract follows):

The rage unleashed by the verdict in the Shoesmith case is illustrative of the mounting hostility between the judiciary and Parliament. Judges and politicians do not, and should not, always agree. The danger is that their differences, for which the catalyst is usually though not invariably human rights, become a power battle leading to constitutional meltdown. That zero-sum game has begun.

The fight is not merely arm-wrestling between two different limbs of the constitution. The third player is the Strasbourg-based European Court of Human Rights, with a jurisdiction stretching from Reykjavik to Vladivostock and encompassing the 47 member states of the Council of Europe.

Tensions between these three have already brought Britain to what some regard as the brink of constitutional crisis. In fact, the stand-off has barely started. Coming over the horizon are three issues that may test the current settlement to breaking point. The first is prisoner voting. In February, Parliament decided, by a majority of 212, to defy a 2005 ruling by the Strasbourg court to outlaw a blanket ban. With the appeal process exhausted, Britain now has no legal option but to offer some prisoners the vote, as is the common European practice.

There's more, obviously. Take a look!

BBC News: Clegg unveils plans for elected House of Lords

BBC News has news of the latest announcement (with video), made today, for Lords' Reform:

Nick Clegg has set out options for replacing the House of Lords with a mainly elected upper chamber.

The deputy prime minister outlined plans for a legislature with 300 members, 80% of which could be elected. While it was up to MPs and peers to decide the final balance, he said the first elections should happen in 2015. The plans would give Parliament "greater democratic legitimacy", he argued, but many MPs said it would threaten the supremacy of the Commons.

Labour said the plans were a "dog's dinner" lacking detail and a number of backbench MPs said any proposals should be put to the people in a referendum.

Alongside Prime Minister David Cameron, Mr Clegg announced the proposed reforms to the Commons but was barracked by many Tory MPs while doing so.

He described reform of the House of Lords as "unfinished business" but said he was "open-minded" about how to get to the government's ultimate goal of a mainly elected chamber to replace the existing appointed one.

A future government draft bill would contain plans for an 80:20 split but there would be a provision for a fully elected chamber if that is "what people want", he told MPs, appealing for a cross-party consensus on the issue.

A joint committee of 13 MPs and 13 peers to be set up in the next few months will consider plans for members of the new legislature to be elected for 15-year terms under the single transferable vote system.

Under the government's plans, members would be elected on a staged basis - a third every five years - with the first elections for the new chamber to take place in 2015 - on the same day as the next general election.

Read the rest!

Coalition 'losing way' on green policies - campaigners

BBC News brings news of high level representations made to the Coalition government regarding its current approach to environmental matters:

The heads of 15 green campaign groups have written to the prime minister (pdf link) warning the government is in danger of losing its way on environmental policy.

The letter says the coalition should promote a green economy with "urgency and resolve" if it is to follow its vow to be the "greenest government ever". The groups include Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and the RSPB.

Downing Street says it stands by its record of protecting the environment and delivering a low carbon economy. A year ago, David Cameron said the environment would be a top priority.

In their letter the campaign groups describe the pledge as a "great ambition" and cite the cancellation of the third runway at Heathrow, the decision to set up a green investment bank and a commitment to a Natural Environment White Paper as examples of a "promising start". They say the coalition "started with a strong sense of purpose on the environment but is now in danger of losing its way".

They point to the proposed changes in the planning system which they claim will not provide enough protection for wildlife and the countryside. The letter also suggests a zero carbon homes policy has been weakened and point to delays in giving borrowing powers to the new green investment bank. It says foreign policy should take account of natural resource security.

The letter adds: "Most critically we urge you to set out the case that a green economy is central to the future prosperity of the UK and not a cost to be endlessly debated and watered down... "We believe there is still scope for your government to be the greenest ever, but it will require both urgency and resolve."

There's more - take a look! A great insight into perceptions of coalition policy on a critical issue and a useful current example for the role of pressure groups within the UK.

Police reform bill defeat for government in Lords

The Guardian—amongst many other news outlets—carries news today of the defeat in the House of Lords of the Coalition government's legislation on police powers:

The government suffered a major defeat in the Lords when a rebellion by Liberal Democrat peers helped carry an amendment that could bury the government's central policy of elected police and crime commissioners.

In an apparent show of the "muscular liberalism" Nick Clegg had promised would mark a new phase in the coalition as it enters its second year, Lib Dem peers threw out the plans to introduce American-style elected commissioners.

It marks a serious defeat on the coalition's first anniversary, including for Clegg, who at the last minute sent whips round to convince his party's members to back the bill. Some 188 peers voted for the amendment, which knocked out plans for elected commissioners, with 176 opposing it. The vote carried with backing from 13 Liberal Democrat peers including Lord Oakeshott; some also defied the government by abstaining and allowing the amendment to squeak through.

Clegg had indicated support for a rival amendment that would have shelved the plans for three years to allow time for pilots, but that was passed over in favour of the stronger change which, in effect, removes the policy of elected commissioners from the legislation.

The police reform bill will return to the Commons, where it is more likely to pass, paving the way for a lengthy period of "ping-ponging" between the houses.

Ministers insisted they would try to overturn the amendment. A Home Office spokesman said: "The election of police and crime commissioners is a clear coalition agreement policy. So while we will consider the debate in the Lords, we will look to redress this in the Commons."

 The Guardian article goes on to discuss the ramifications of the Lord's rejection and the political capital being made from it by various parties.

This government defeat, of course, represents an important—and timely—current example of peers exercising their power of review in forcing a government rethink.

There is talk of using the Parliament Act to force the legislation through, regardless of Lords' opposition.... This is fraught with constitutional dilemma, however, as the understanding is that this mechanism can only be used when ensuring the implementation of a government manifesto item—what should happen when the legislation concerns something not in either coalition party manifesto, but only in the subsequent Coalition agreement?

BBC News: Number 10 shuns EU flag tradition

BBC News reports today on an apparent outbreak of mild Euro-skepticism within the Conservative sections of the Coalition government—including the PM's office:

Downing Street will not fly the EU flag over Number 10 during Europe Day on Monday unlike previous years, the BBC has learned.

Some other departments, including the Treasury and Foreign Office, will also not hoist the European symbol. But the Liberal Democrat Vince Cable's Department for Business will raise the blue and gold flag.

Downing Street denied there had been any instruction from the prime minister to departments to end the tradition. However, Number 10 did hoist the flag last year.

The UK's relationship with Europe is a potential source of tension between the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition partners.

The government's own published guidance still does suggest that departments should mark the day by flying the EU flag.

A spokesperson from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills told the BBC its permanent secretary had taken the decision to fly the flag as in previous years. Meanwhile, the Department of Energy and Climate Change, led by another Liberal Democrat, Chris Huhne, told the BBC it did not have a flagpole.

 More cosmetic than substantial in this instance—but may betray internal viewpoints...