The Tories have let slip their deeply flawed plans for devolution on English matters. William Hague announced that the government proposes a new committee stage, referred to as an English grand committee.
This new grand committee would meet to consider any bill or any part of a bill affecting England that is put to a final vote in the House of Commons. If the grand committee does not have majority backing, then the bill or relevant part would not proceed. All members of parliament would have a vote on any legislation considered for final approval in the House of Commons.
This new committee stage is intended to serve as a kind of veto on legislation that affects England alone by English members of parliament only. Its alleged appeal is that it maintains a general equality between members of parliament representing all parts of the UK because all would have a vote on final approval of bills. This is meant to avoid some members of parliament having a second class status compared to English members of parliament.
The government’s proposals at last accept Labour’s repeatedly stated concerns about an English parliament and the thorny constitutional questions it would raise. Labour has argued that any such fundamental reform of the legislative process should be undertaken with care. No such reforms should be rushed through Parliament without sufficient careful attention to potential consequences. This is because constitutional change is difficult to enact and often much more difficult to untangle if it goes wrong. Looking at this issue carefully is not a failure to act, but acting reasonably.
The government is not listening to these reasonable concerns. It has already conceded that the composition of the proposed English grand committee would not be 100 per cent English for matters that affect only England and Wales. So who is an eligible, voting member for this important committee in this new legislative stage would vary for each bill. Some bills affecting all the UK would not trigger a committee stage presumably. Other bills or their parts affecting only England and Wales would require the ‘English’ grand committee to meet composed of members of parliament representing English and Welsh constituencies. Yet other bills or any relevant parts affecting only England would trigger the same grand committee to meet, but with different membership as members of parliament for Welsh constituencies would not have a vote.
So one problem for the government is their proposal for one ‘English’ grand committee might actually require two committees: an English grand committee for English-only matters as well as an English and Welsh grand committee for matters affecting these regions.
But there is another problem: What about Northern Ireland? There are some powers devolved to Wales or Scotland not devolved to Northern Ireland. This raises the prospect of four different grand committees; one for English-only matters by English MPs alone, a second for English and Welsh-only matters by MPs from these constituencies, a third for English and Northern Irish-only matters by MPs from these constituencies and, where relevant, a possible fourth grand committee for English, Welsh and Northern Irish-only matters (call this the non-Scottish grand committee) that further devolution in Scotland will make possible.
This is a serious problem for several reasons. First, who decides what is a bill or a part of a Bill that affects one or other parts of the UK? This might not always be crystal clear. Secondly, if a grand committee stage should become a part of the legislative process, should it only meet when it is thought relevant or should there be a convention that grand committees would not veto bills or their parts unless determined by some to-be-confirmed procedure that a particular committee has the constitutional authority to do so? I have suggested throughout that there should be not one, but multiple grand committees which leads me to a final point; will the government now accept this fact? Multiple committees would make clear their membership while a single ‘English’ grand committee whose membership always includes English MPs, but might also include Welsh or Northern Irish is more musical chairs than clear cut.
I fully support greater devolution for England and have said so on multiple occasions. But this is a constitutional change with potentially enormous repercussions for future policy, not least if we get it wrong. Moving too fast is cheap electioneering that is a disservice to voters as well as parliament. Devolution matters, and this is why much greater scrutiny is required because a simple plan for a single committee can come undone as quickly the government’s new proposals have done. Labour can lead by being a voice of reason and responsibility — which is also the most sensible path to some of the most radical constitutional reforms we’re likely to see in future.
———————————
Thom Brooks is professor of law and government at Durham University. He tweets at @thom_brooks
———————————