The Salisbury Convention (Hansard, 15 December 1999)

§ Lord Campbell of Alloway
asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they favour retention of the Salisbury convention when Her Majesty's Opposition have no voting majority in either House of Parliament.

§ The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington)
Yes, my Lords. I am sure the noble Lord is aware that the Salisbury/Addison convention has nothing to do with the strength of the parties in either House of Parliament and everything to do with the relationship between the two Houses. The other House—and, with it, the Government—is elected on a universal franchise and, pace the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, who I am sorry to see is not in his place, no one in this House is elected on that basis. In those circumstances, it must remain the case that it would be constitutionally wrong, when the country has expressed its view, for this House to oppose proposals that have been definitely put before the electorate.

§ Lord Campbell of Alloway
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for her reply and, indeed, for taking the Question. However, as a matter of principle and leaving aside Wakeham, if we may, for one moment, perhaps I may ask the following question. If the circumstances in which this convention was introduced and implemented no longer exist, can the noble Baroness say whether retention can be justified without further examination? Further, and in this context, can the noble Baroness say whether it is really requisite for the House to determine a self-denying ordinance to replace it? Is it not a matter for the House as master of its own procedures?

§ Baroness Jay of Paddington
My Lords, if I understand precisely what the noble Lord is saying, he is asking on what principle the Salisbury/Addison convention was established in 1945. Perhaps I may quote directly from the then Lord Cranborne who, in proposing this, said that, we should frankly recognise that these proposals" — those contained in the election manifesto of the Labour Party at that time— were put before the country at the recent General Election and that the people of this country, with full knowledge of these proposals, returned a Labour Party to power. The Government may, therefore, I think, fairly claim that they have a mandate to introduce these proposals". —[Official Report, 16/8/1945; col. 47.] I am not sure where the noble Lord sees a difference of principle between that situation, which was enunciated and has formed the basis for the Salisbury/Addison convention ever since, and the situation in which we now find ourselves.
215 The noble Lord asked me to ignore the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and his Royal Commission, but he will be aware that the Government very precisely put in the commission's terms of reference the need to maintain the position of the House of Commons as the pre-eminent Chamber of Parliament. Having reread the recent constitutional lecture given by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, on this subject, I believe he reaffirmed that point.

§ Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House is very kind to say that she has reread my speech to the think-tank Politeia. I hope that she enjoyed it. However, is it not the case that in 1945 this House was entirely hereditary? There were no life Peers at all and very few Labour Peers. That justified the reason for the creation of what we now know as the Salisbury convention.
The noble Baroness has said that this House has changed, that there is a new dynamic, and that the House has a new authority. Therefore, does she agree with the view that I expressed in my speech—the Tory Party's view—that the time has come to re-examine the Salisbury convention and for discussion to take place before a new agreement can be reached between the parties?
Given the noble Baroness's initial Answer, could she possibly write to me—unless, of course, she has the answer to hand now—with a list of the manifesto commitments that she believes bind the House and this Parliament?

§ Baroness Jay of Paddington
Yes, my Lords. I shall be delighted to send the noble Lord a copy of the manifesto, which may answer his question very simply. I shall not burden the House by trying from my inadequate memory to rehearse it to him this afternoon. However, perhaps I may remind the noble Lord that he also said in this well-known lecture, which bears more than one rereading, that we should be, in his very felicitous expression, "less grim-jawed" about the Salisbury convention. Frankly, I never regard the noble Lord as being grim jawed at all, but, when speaking about the changing circumstances—and it is a delight to be able to quote him so extensively—he went on to say: The House of Lords is not suddenly going to change all that" — that is to say, the Salisbury/Addison agreement— It will always accept the primacy of the elected House. It will always accept that the Queen's Government must be carried on".

§ Lord Lipsey
My Lords, does my noble friend the Leader of the House agree that the day that this House starts conducting a systematic, frontal attack on the legislative proposals of the elected government, that day this House will be signing its death warrant?

§ Baroness Jay of Paddington
My Lords, my noble friend puts it in a very exact form and one which I would hesitate to underline in public. However, if 216 noble Lords were to trespass very broadly on these understandings and conventions, it is very clear that it would indeed change the dynamic of future reform.

§ Lord Simon of Glaisdale
My Lords, as your Lordships are here concerned with a convention and not a rule of law, is it not the fact that it is relevant only in so far as it is constitutionally required? Is not that a matter for your Lordships and not for the Government to decide? Further, perhaps I may venture a third question: should not this matter be shortly debated again?

Baronesses Jay of Paddington
My Lords, in due deference to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, I say only that I was asked to comment on this matter. I was in no way suggesting that the Government were in any sense doing more than simply reflecting the established position. Of course, matters of procedure in your Lordships' House are for the House as a whole.
The noble and learned Lord asks me to comment on the constitution. I do not know whether he regards Dicey's Law of the Constitution as being an appropriate authority, but perhaps I may quote directly from it: The general rule that the House of Lords must in matters of legislation ultimately give way to the House of Commons is one of the best-established maxims of modern constitutional ethics".

§ Lord Hooson
My Lords—

§ Lord Denham
My Lords—

Noble Lords
This side!

§ The Attorney-General (Lord Williams of Mostyn)
My Lords, I believe that the House would wish to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Denham.

§ Lord Denham
My Lords, I am most grateful. I remember a time when a Labour opposition took a lot of convincing that the Salisbury/Addison convention applied to them as well as to a Tory opposition. Over the years, the convention has gradually evolved to suit the circumstances of the time. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House will realise—will she not? —that there has been a rather substantial change in the balance between the two Houses which must lead to a substantial revaluation of the Salisbury/Addison convention.

§ Baroness Jay of Paddington
No, my Lords, I am afraid that I cannot accept that. The Conservative hegemony—I use the words of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer when he replied to a similar debate last week in your Lordships' House—in this House has been altered. As I hope that I suggested in my reply to the original Question from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, the Salisbury/Addison convention is based on the relationship between the two Houses. It has nothing to do with the relative party strengths in this House.

§ Lord Hooson
My Lords, does not the noble Baroness the Leader of the House agree that the 217 Salisbury convention is not so much a matter of principle as of expediency and convenience for the business of Parliament, and that the conditions which necessitated that convention coming into being still exist at present and will continue until we know what the permanent constitution of the second House is likely to be?

§ Baroness Jay of Paddington
My Lords, I agree with most of what the noble Lord has said. This matter is about business management, as I hope I made clear when I quoted the words of the then Lord Cranborne in 1945. However, it also concerns the political imperative of the elected party's manifesto commitments. Therefore, it goes a little beyond expediency and can concern the important political principles of the programme which is laid before the electorate.