Washminster Takes A Short Break

Washminster is taking a short break. It will return on Tuesday 6th April - the day Parliament returns from its (very short) Easter Recess. It would not be unexpected if an announcement were made that day about the date of the General Election. Washminster will set out the context and procedures from that point until Parliament is dissolved. It will then provide the background to the election.

In the event of an earlier announcement, Washminster wil return immediately.

Election Day

We will probably hear soon if an election is to be called for May 6th. Both Houses will rise for the Easter Recess on Tuesday 30th March. They will return a week later on Tuesday 6th April. It is regarded by many as likely that an announcement would be made on 6th - and the "wash-up period" would begin.

A House of Commons Standard Note (SN/PC/05085) says " the Government will decide what its priorities are and seek the co-operation the Opposition in getting legislation through. In doing so there will invariably be sacrifices to be made. Some Bills might be lost completely, others might be progressed quickly but in a much-shortened form. A lot will depend on where the Bills are in the legislative process and whether or not they are controversial."

Once business is completed (perhaps on Thursday 8th April) Parliament would be prorogued. It would then be dissolved (probably on Monday 12th, the last date for this in the election timetable - see House of Commons Research Paper 09/44)

One circumstance (other than Gordon Brown deciding not to call a May 6th election) would lead to a different date. The death of the Queen during the election period. s20 Representation of the People Act 1985 would postpone the election day by two weeks (20th May).

Does Britain need a "Written" Constitution?

As I outlined on the post of October 7th last year, while Britain doesn't have a single document called a "Constitution" it does have a wide range of sources (in written form) which contain the constitutional rules.

It may be inconvenient (though as American Law Students know - the study of Constitutional Law doesn't end with reading the few pages of the Constitutions Articles and amendments - there is much caselaw; lots of authoritative writings - and practices English students would recognise as conventions) - but is that reason enough to codify it. As the history of the Law Commission shows - codification is not so easy to achieve in practice.

Perhaps the more important issue is - are there aspects of the British Constitution which urgently need addressing? Do the current rules adequately protect against the abuse of power?Is relying on legally unenforceable conventions a sufficient guard against a temptation to break conventions when convenient? Is the constitutional system working very well?

If we are to face a period with a hung Parliament - will our practices be robust enough - or will key people have to make things up as they go along?

The US Constitution resulted from an intense period of reflection and argument about the purposes of 'government' and how to avoid the power granted being abused.

There are now extensive sources available to look at what happened in that convention. The Avalon Project contains many resources. I've recently read two very interesting books on the convention - The Constitutional Convention: A Narrative History from the Notes of James Madison (further details here) and Decision in Philadelphia: The Constitutional Convention of 1787 by Christopher Collier and James Lincoln Collier (further details here)

Perhaps it is time to sit down and consider the UK Constitution in 2010!

The Motorway Marginals

A new phrase has entered the British political lexicon this year - the "motorway marginals". Many of the seats most at play in the coming election are close to the major motorways in Britain. (Perhaps that's not a great surprise - the motorways were planned to link the areas of greatest populations)

The Independent reported at the beginning of this month "Tory strategists have identified a "golden ribbon" of marginals along three busy motorway corridors: the M62, M6 and M5." The M62 links together the northern conurbations of Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds and Hull. The M5 runs from Birmingham to Exeter - close to the SW of the Birmingham conurbation - and the cities (smaller towns than the post industrial revolution population areas - but ancient cities) of Worcester, Gloucester & Taunton - and the Bristol conurbation.

The M6 actually starts in South Leicestershire (in the seat I stood in twice - which has always enjoyed a 'healthy' Conservative majority) through (after 1/2 a mile) the super marginal of Rugby - and then through the conurbations surrounding Coventry; Birmingham; Stoke on Trent - between Manchester & Liverpool - Preston & Carlisle. Blackpool is not too far away.

I would also add that the M1 passes by key marginals in northern London; Luton; Milton Keynes; Northampton - and through the super-marginal area around Nottingham and Derby. The M1 continues to Leeds.

The M4 runs from West London - through another area of supermarginals - to Slough; Reading; Swindon; Bristol; Cardiff and Swansea.

To get interactive maps of motorways in England (and the latest traffic news!) visit the Highways Agency website.

Peers Suffrage

Viscount Tenby asked the government earlier this week - whether they plan to change the law to allow peers who are members of the House of Lords to vote in general elections.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bach): My Lords, the Government's 2008 White Paper on House of Lords reform proposed that Members of a reformed second Chamber should be able to vote in elections both to the House of Commons and to the reformed second Chamber. The proposals would enable all members of the peerage and new Members of the second Chamber to vote in all elections.

Viscount Tenby: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that incisive reply. Is he aware-I am sure that he is-that once those in custody have been given the vote, which rightly seems likely to happen in the near future, the only people unable to do so will be those who are judged incapable of voting and Peers of this House? With so much dissension about the constitutional reform of this House across and among parties, would not the Government welcome the chance to bring in a relatively easy amendment that would command support on all sides of the House?

Lord Bach: I am not sure that it would get absolutely unanimous support across the House-I have to say that first-although I think that it would get general support. However, our view is that provisions on voting in general elections are best dealt with in the context of a fully reformed second Chamber-so perhaps we should move to a reformed second Chamber as quickly as we can.

Lord Waddington: Would not the Minister agree that, whereas Members of the House of Commons represent their constituents, we have the great privilege of representing ourselves in Parliament? Leaving aside what may be in store for us in future, is not the present set-up entirely justifiable? Why should we have the right to have an MP represent us when we can represent ourselves?

Lord Bach: I do not think that the constitutional position could have been put better, but I am looking forward myself to being able to vote in a general election again.

Lord Acton: My mother's father-the late, late, late Lord Rayleigh-adopted the American colonists' mantra, "No taxation without representation". Does that not answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington?

Lord Bach: It is an extremely effective mantra. Whether it actually answers the noble Lord's constitutional point, going back to the resolution of the House in 1699, I am not entirely certain.

Baroness Butler-Sloss: Would not the Minister like to divide the Peers from the lunatics?

Lord Bach: I do that every day.

The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds: Would the Minister confirm that it is in order for Lords spiritual, who are not Peers, to vote in general elections, and that they should therefore be encouraged like all good citizens to use their vote?

Lord Bach: There is no bar to the Lords spiritual voting in parliamentary elections. However, I understand that it has long been the tradition that they do not do so. While they are not Peers, they none the less sit in this House and can therefore participate in person in the proceedings of Parliament instead of being represented in the House of Commons. There is no legal bar to the Lords spiritual voting in a general election; it is very much a matter for them.

Lord Tyler: My Lords, as the Minister said, there was cross-party agreement in the group that led to the 2008 White Paper on this issue. Does he recognise that that was 89 weeks ago? What have he and his fellow Ministers at the Ministry of Justice been doing all this time? Apparently there is now the promise of a draft Bill or some draft clauses. What is this going to be-is it serious legislation or is it simply electioneering at the fag end of this Parliament?

Lord Bach: The noble Lord will remember that, as I understand it, the cross-party group was made up of Front-Benchers. There are many others in this House who are not Front-Benchers who do not always share precisely the views of their Front Bench.

Lord Kinnock: I ask my noble friend to be slightly more incisive than he was even in his very incisive first Answer and anticipate the spirit of future reform by inserting a small government amendment in the forthcoming constitutional Bill that would enable those Peers who wanted to vote, as well as voting for a Member of Parliament, to vote for a Government, and those Peers who did not want to vote to be able to abstain. By those means, he would satisfy everyone.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I have always found everything that my noble friend has said extremely tempting, but on this occasion I have to resist what he has to say. Our view is that provisions on voting in general elections are best dealt with in the context of a fully reformed second Chamber.

Lord Selsdon: My Lords, I declare an interest: I have never been able to vote at all. How many people, other than me, did not vote in the previous election?

Lord Bach: Of those entitled to vote, some 38 per cent.

Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, my noble friend made reference to a new reform Bill, which has been referred to as a constitutional Bill. An amendment could be incorporated into it, as has been suggested, to deal with the question of Peers voting in the general election. However, my understanding is-my noble friend referred to this when he talked about differences of opinion between the Front Bench-

Noble Lords: Too long!

Lord Davies of Coity: Sorry. My question is: can my noble friend guarantee that this House will support the reform Bill that the Front Benches are agreeing to?

Lord Bach: I find as months go by that I can guarantee really nothing at all. I have certainly never been able to guarantee anything that is before this House.