It is clear why English votes for English laws is attractive to the Conservative party, and polling suggests it is the public’s preferred solution to the West Lothian Question too. Clearly, it is a problem that England, the only country in the union without significant devolution, is subject to decisions carried on the votes of members of parliament whose constituencies are unaffected by those laws. However, EVEL is much more complicated than David Cameron appears to have acknowledged; indeed, it may well require far more drastic constitutional change than any solution proposed so far.
Government in the United Kingdom does operate according to a constitution: it is uncodified but it exists and at its core is the principle that an act passed by both Houses of Parliament and given royal assent is the law. No matter what the European Union, European Court of Human Rights, devolved bodies or earlier laws have to say about it, a new act takes precedence.
For that sovereignty to exist it requires that at any time parliament can rule on any issue. In theory that includes areas devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Under EVEL, either the sovereignty of the Queen in parliament has to come to an end – which just raises further questions –or English MPs would retain the sovereign power to rule on every issue when their non-English counterparts could not, disenfranchising those MPs and their constituents.
Even identifying ‘English laws’ may well be an impossible task. The Higher Education Act 2004 introduced top-up fees for English students and enabled the Welsh assembly to introduce them in Wales. The assembly opted not to introduce the fees but the act was passed with the support of Welsh MPs. Should those MPs have been stopped from voting on a bill which affected Wales, just not as much as England? Who decides which laws are English and which are not?
Even if we could identify ‘English laws’, those bills could still indirectly affect the constituencies of non-English MPs, as any increase or reduction in total public spending in England creates a proportional increase or decrease in the funding the devolved bodies receive. Either English MPs are to possess disproportionate control over funding for the devolved bodies or EVEL also requires changes to the way public spending decisions are taken in Westminster.
These are only three of the issues EVEL throws up among a legion of others which touch at the heart of how the UK operates and all of which will need to be resolved before it can come into effect.
The West Lothian Question predates Tam Dalyell and his 1977 speech (which actually dismissed the concept of EVEL), or even the creation of the Northern Irish parliament in 1921 – at which time the Conservatives claimed the question did not need an answer. It was actually first raised in objection to Gladstone’s proposals for Irish Home Rule. If Cameron thinks he can fast-track a solution to a question which the UK has wrestled with since the 19th century, a question which affects the core concepts of the state and without any wider input, he is beyond arrogant.
It may well be that all the issues around EVEL can be resolved, and perhaps through some miracle it could be done with the speed the Conservatives seem to feel is necessary, but it would be utterly wrong for a government to change the basic principles of the state without an elected mandate or any significant form of consultation with the general public. To do so is not only profoundly undemocratic but robs the English of the same opportunity every other UK nation has now had to decide their own future.
I wholeheartedly believe that Ed Miliband’s position on holding a constitutional convention is the right thing to do. Decisions around the fundamental nature of the state go beyond day-to-day politics and require a national conversation about our identity and the future of our government. If there is one take-home point from the Scottish independence referendum it is that if you want to re-engage people with politics you need to be willing to give citizens real ownership over some of the big questions in public life.
While Cameron talks of giving England back control he is working hard to retrench power in the hands of a Westminster elite and his Alex Salmond-style denial of the wider implications of reform risks future constitutional crises. Only Labour is willing to offer the English people a real chance to decide how their country is run and provide a stable future for the UK.
———————————-
Peter Lamb is leader of Crawley borough council
———————————-