Wednesday, 13 July 2022

Conservative leadership ~ A Confidence Vote

Conservative Party leadership:

On Monday 11 July, the Conservative Party announced a timetable for its process for choosing a new party leader. The selection process is described at - How many votes do candidates need for Conservative leadership? Rules and timetable for Tory leadership race (inews.co.uk 11 July 2022)

By Wednesday morning 13 July, there were 8 candidates - The Guardian 12 July - Kemi Badenock, Suella Braverman, Jeremy Hunt, Penny Mordaunt, Rishi Sunak, Liz Truss, Tom Tugendhat and Nadhim Zahawi. 

The Conservative Party's aim is to conclude the entire process by 5 September - the day Parliament resumes after the summer recess. 

If events take the course planned then the new party leader will be appointed Prime Minister by the Queen who 

will have acted in line with constitutional convention.

That is one example showing the importance of such conventions in the UK's constitutional arrangements. 

Conventions:

Constitutional conventions are well discussed at What are constitutional conventions? | The Constitution Unit - UCL – University College London - where it is noted that 

"Constitutional conventions are rules of good political behaviour. They are typically rules of self-restraint, not exercising powers to the full. They usually develop from established constitutional practice, but sometimes are deliberately created; and to count as a convention, they must be generally accepted to be binding. In the UK’s constitutional arrangement, one well-known convention is that the Prime Minister is expected to resign where it is clear that he or she does not command the confidence of the House of Commons and an alternative government does."

A Confidence Vote?

On Tuesday 12 July, it became clear that the government had decided to refuse parliamentary time for a vote of confidence - The Guardian 12 July. Unsurprisingly, this has caused a furore within Opposition parties. 

The Opposition sought a vote referring to both the government and the Prime Minister. The government considered that the Prime Minister did not need to be included since he had already indicated that he would resign once a new party leader is chosen. If the Opposition vote related to the government alone then parliamentary time would be allocated.

An unsatisfactory position:

Johnson remains in place as Prime Minister despite having lost the support of many in his own party - (as noted in the previous post). 

Ultimately, a government gains its legitimacy from having the confidence of the House of Commons - the only House made up of representatives of the people. It is therefore important, no matter how a motion is worded, that the confidence of the House of Commons in the government is tested particularly in the present circumstances. 

In the event that a confidence motion is debated then it is perhaps unlikely to succeed due to the government's large majority but that ought not, in itself, prevent a vote taking place. The debate would enable MPs to put on record their views about the government and the Prime Minister.

It may be that the government's refusal of time is based on a wish to avoid what would be an embarrassing debate especially for some of the leadership candidates and Conservative MPs more generally.

Erskine May on Confidence:

Confidence motions are discussed in Erskine May - UK Parliament  - Part 3 Chapter 18 para 44 -

"From time to time the Opposition has put down a motion on the paper expressing lack of confidence in the Government or otherwise criticising its general conduct. By established convention, the Government always accedes to the demand from the Leader of the Opposition to allot a day for the discussion of a motion tabled by the official Opposition which, in the Government's view, would have the effect of testing the confidence of the House. In allotting a day for this purpose, the Government is entitled to have regard to the exigencies of its own business, but a reasonably early day is invariably found."

Erskine May continues - 

"This convention is founded on the recognised position of the Opposition as a potential government, which guarantees the legitimacy of such an interruption of the normal course of business. For its part, the Government has everything to gain by meeting such a direct challenge to its authority at the earliest possible moment ..... "

and

"Motions critical of the conduct of Ministers, either individually or collectively, have not been treated as falling within this convention, and in practice have generally been debated in opposition time."

Control of parliamentary time:

Erskine May - Part 3 Chapter 18 para 10 - notes -

"In principle, the control of the distribution of the time available to the House rests with the House itself. In practice, the House has by standing orders delegated this control, with some exceptions for opposition, backbench and other private Members' business and other minor reservations, to the Government. This control was the result of a process which continued over nearly two centuries, whereby an increasing proportion of the time of each session was placed at the disposal of the Government."

Para 18.11 notes -

"The basis of the Government's control over the business of the House lies in Standing Order No 14, which gives the Government's business precedence at every sitting, except on 13 Fridays when precedence is given to Private Members' Bills, 20 other days at the disposal of the opposition parties, at least 27 days allocated by the Backbench Business Committee for backbench business, and (under Standing Order No 54) three days allotted for the consideration of Estimates recommended by the Liaison Committee. This, coupled with the provision in Standing Order No 27 allowing the Government to arrange its business in any order it thinks fit, gives the Government substantial control over the time of the House. (This far-reaching control can be further extended by the Government, if the need arises, by inviting the House to agree to a motion suspending the relevant standing orders under which certain time is allotted to private Members or by making a special order for the purpose.)"

In this way, the executive's "grip" on parliamentary business is embodied in Standing Orders.

A Twitter thread:

(1) Robert Saunders on Twitter: "This breaches two important constitutional principles: that a government must command the confidence of the House of Commons; and that the official Opposition has a right to test whether or not that is the case. Whether ministers like the wording is neither here nor there. [1/7]" / Twitter

Other links:

How the Government refusing a Confidence Vote subverts our Constitution – The Law and Policy Blog (davidallengreen.com)

Updates:

13 July - First ballot of Conservative MPs - Hunt and Zahawi rejected - Tory leadership race: who’s still standing, what are they promising and who’s backing them? | Conservatives | The Guardian

13 July - Government tables confidence vote in itself - Government tables no-confidence vote in itself after blocking Labour bid | Politics News | Sky News

15 July - Second ballot eliminated Attorney General Suella Braverman who had said she would take the UK out of the European Convention on Human Rights - Penny Mordaunt’s Tory leadership bid boosted as Braverman exits | Conservative leadership | The Guardian

13 July 2022


No comments:

Post a Comment