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?