3.The 2017 general election resulted in a minority Conservative government, supported by a confidence and supply agreement with the Democratic Unionist Party. This raised questions about the applicability of the Salisbury Addison Convention when there is a minority government.5 To inform this debate, we sought the views of the Speaker of the House of Lords, leader of the House of Lords, the Speaker of the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords, the Convenor of the Crossbench Peers and others on the Salis Addburyison convention. Copies of this correspondence can be made in the appendices of this report. We are grateful for their contributions. Salisbury University currently has the following articulation agreements: more recently, the House of Lords Constitutional Committee has twice considered the Convention. In 2014, his report on the constitutional implications of the coalition government looked at the functioning of the Convention where there is a coalition government and concluded that the Convention “does not strictly apply to measures in a coalition agreement.” In 2017, the Committee published another report specifically on the Convention, which focused on its implementation where there is a minority government. This time, the report was merely a means of publishing the contributions of party leaders in the House of Lords, the Convenor of the Crossbench Peers and Professor Meg Russell, director of the entity. 2. We have come to the conclusion that the Salisbury-Addison Convention “does not strictly apply to measures in a coalition agreement. Because a coalition agreement cannot say that it has a mandate as a voter, as a manifesto can do. 2 However, if all parties in a coalition have made the same or substantially similar commitment in their manifestos, they should be entitled to the Salisbury Addison Convention with respect to that commitment. 3 We also recognized that a “practice has been developed, that the House of Lords does not generally block government accounts, whether they are in a manifesto or not. There is no reason why this practice should not apply if there is a coalition government. 4 Evidence presented by some Liberal Democrats to this joint committee established that the original agreement “only existed between the Conservatives and the Labour Party, because and assuming that the Conservatives were the dominant force in the House of Lords.
Neither the Liberals nor the non-aligned peers were involved. She also quoted, with her agreement, the statement of How Parliament Works that “the Salisbury Convention is perhaps more of a code of conduct for the Conservative Party, if it is in opposition in the Lords, than a convention of the Assembly.” “In the House of Lords: a manifesto bill is granted a second reading; A legislative manifesto is not subject to “destructive amendments” that alter the government`s intent, as proposed in the bill; and a manifesto is legally adopted and sent to the House of Commons (or returned) so that they can consider, within a reasonable time, the bill or any amendment that the lords wish to propose. After Labour`s victory in the 2005 general election, the Liberal Democrats said they did not feel bound by the Salisbury Convention because of the drop in turnout, the low percentage of government votes and changes introduced by the Labour government in 1999 in the composition of the House of Lords.  Given that the referendum was only a question about leaving the European Union and not about the nature of the UK`s relationship with the EU afterwards, an amendment providing for a negotiating objective for remaining in the European Economic Area cannot be considered “devastating”.