David Cameron announced support for ‘English votes for English laws’. It is easy to see why. Members of parliament from Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland can vote on issues that affect England alone. This can lead to situations like tuition fees in England which only passed with support from non-English MPs.
Cameron knows that this policy is popular and commands much support. The rest of the United Kingdom enjoys devolved powers, so perhaps it is time for England as well. The big question is: if there should be English votes on English laws, what happens next?
Don’t expect to hear calls for a new English parliament or regional assemblies. Such plans have been shelved since the north-east emphatically rejected its assembly at the polls nearly 10 years ago.
Tory MP John Redwood argues no new building is required or extra politicians. All MPs can and should vote on British matters affecting the United Kingdom in the House of Commons, but only English MPs should vote on laws that effect England-only. We can devolve powers to England swiftly because the facilities and representatives are already established.
Ed Miliband has been on the receiving end of some heavy criticism lately for not jumping on this evolving bandwagon. But he is right to be cautious because the long-term consequences must be clarified before changes are made. How sadly ironic it would be if within days of Scotland’s remaining a firm member of the UK any bungling of devolution of powers to England permanently damaged our political union.
There are serious issues that any devolution for England must address – few of which have attracted any attention thus far. One problem is that MPs would lack equality: some would enjoy more rights than others. If only English MPs could vote on English laws, then English MPs would have greater rights to political participation in Westminster than other MPs with more limited voting powers.
A second problem is pay. If English MPs participated in national and English-only debates, then they would take on added responsibilities not unlike elected members to regional assemblies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Should English MPs be paid more than others because of their unequal powers?
The potential for instability is a third problem. Markets crave stability and Redwood’s vision for parliament could undermine it. It is not impossible to imagine an election where the party that wins the most seats becoming the new government may be unable to command a majority on English-only laws. A vote of no confidence in the government could pass on English-only matters, even if the government is supported by a majority of MPs including non-English MPs.
These issues are only the start of the problems that must be addressed. Should there be a secretary of state for Education in the cabinet if education is devolved to England? Can a Scottish or Welsh MP serve as a leader of the House of Commons responsible for arranging government business where he or she is unable to have any say on it?
Finally, must any future prime minister be English? The concern is that any MP from outside England might be seen of less than a full MP and hamstrung because he or she would lack the same rights as other MPs to debate and vote on the same issues in parliament.
‘English votes for English laws’ is a fine slogan. But we shouldn’t rush to support the first proposal we are offered to make it a reality. I am all for devolution of powers to England, but it is crucial we get it right to avoid the risk of long-term damage. Let’s be open-minded about our options, such as devolved power to existing regional hubs that might better address the diverse needs of England’s regions and make devolution work for us.
———————————
Thom Brooks is professor of law and government at Durham University. He tweets at @thom_brooks
There is no West Lothian Question. The Parliament of the United Kingdom reserves the right to legislate supremely in any policy area for any part of the country. It never need do so and the point would still stand, since what matters is purely that it has that power in principle, which no one disputes that it has.
If an English Parliament, or “English votes for English laws”, would be so popular, then put it to a referendum of the people of England. It would pass in the South East, although I only suspect that, just as I only suspect that it would pass by far less in East Anglia and perhaps also in those parts of the South West that were not too far south and west.
Whereas I know with absolute certainty, as do you, that it would not obtain one third of the vote anywhere else, that it would not manage one quarter anywhere beyond the Mersey or the Humber (or, I expect, in Devon or Cornwall, either), and that it would not scrape one fifth in the North East, or in Cumbria, or, again, in Cornwall. If anyone doubts this, then bring on that referendum.
As for Labour’s needing Scottish MPs in order to win an overall majority, certain grandees of the commentariat need to be pensioned off, or at the very least to have their copy subjected to the most basic fact-checking by editorial staff.
In 1964, fully 50 years ago, MPs from Scotland delivered a Labour overall majority of four when there would otherwise have been a Conservative overall majority of one that would not have lasted a year.
In October 1974, MPs from Scotland turned what would have been a hung Parliament with Labour as the largest party into a Labour overall majority so tiny that it was lost in the course of that Parliament.
In 2010, MPs from Scotland turned what would have been a small Conservative overall majority into a hung Parliament with the Conservatives as the largest party and with David Cameron as Prime Minister, anyway.
On no other occasion since the War, if ever, have MPs from Scotland, as such, influenced the outcome of a General Election. In any case, with the Government committed to the Barnett Formula, there cannot be any such thing as exclusively English legislation, since it all has knock-on effects in Scotland and Wales. What “English laws”?
The grievance of England, and especially of Northern and Western England, concerns cold, hard cash.
What absolute tosh. You know that if there was a referendum on the issue, it would get an overall majority in England. Somehow you seem to think this would be less legitimate that the referendum we had in Scotland very recently, where different areas voted yes or no, but the overall result was the absolute majority. If this is OK for Scotland, and Wales for that matter, then it is OK for England, and you know it. It is simple democracy.
You keep referencing General Elections. That is not what EVEL is about, and you know that too. If the majority of English MPs who bothereed to vote actually voted against foundation hospitals, or tuition fees, in ENGLAND to quote two examples back to you, why is it legitimate or fair that they were still be pushed through with the votes of Scottish and Welsh MPs, who have no say in those areas in their own constituencies?
We either have democracy, or we have anarchy. And the longer the labour leadership desperately try and back-pedal on this, the more likely it will be that the solution that gets imposed will be as a result of a tory majority in parliament pushing through their plans.
Pendulum swing both ways, Push too hard one way and watch the size of the compensating swing in the other.
The author of the article says it will make two classes of MPs, thereby ignorng the fact we al;ready have two classes. Those who can vote on all matters affecting their constituents, and those who can only vote on non-devolved matters that affect their constituents.
The pay issue is a red herring. Parliament at the moment does not have enough to do, given a large proportion of our laws are simply rubber-stamping that which comes from Brussels, or gold-[plating directives. MPs should be in fact be becoming part-time.
I have no doubt the good professor is looking from an academic viewpoint, but at a political problem.
The reality of course is that labour is desperate to hang onto their political advantage as long as possible, and will do and say anything to move it down the road a couple of years, or ten preferably.
My point is that “EVEL” would institutionalize two classes of MPs – English MPs (with more rights) and non-English MPs. This can have implications for constitutional matters as well as pay & conditions that need to be hammered out in a cross-party and convincing way. This is not a reason to reject something like this altogether, but to urge some caution to avoid unwanted – and even unforeseen – future consequences.
So I do not think this is about any party hanging onto ‘advantages’ (which are..?), but exercising common sense. It is foolish to rush constitutional changes – especially endorsing a model not tried or tested in the UK. (My point here is that no other devolved government in the UK uses Westminster MPs in the way proposed by John Redwood MP and others for England. Again, we need to think through potential issues and whether this solution gets it right – not just as some short headline comment, but as a long-term constitutional change.)
Nor do I think Parliament has too little to do (and because it’s merely rubber stamping directives from elsewhere). I’d recommend watching much more BBC Parliament where one can see this is clearly untrue.
Yorkshire First – the party for Yorkshire – has outlined its response to the current bun fight between the national parties around the ‘English’ question and how to respond to the devolution of more powers to the Scottish Parliament.
Commenting tonight leader of Yorkshire First, Richard Carter, said:
“Yorkshire First was the only party standing in the EU elections with a clear position on a fully democratic elected regional assembly. We are proud to be British, and believe the UK parliament is, and should remain, a full parliament of the UK. It is no more unfair Scottish MPs voting on English affairs than London MPs, who have regional powers too.
“Our issue with the UK parliament is that it is over centralised and not working in the interests of all parts, and regions of it. An English parliament as outlined would be the absolute worst solution for the regions of England.
“We believe that full regional devolution could overcome the ‘English’ question. A council of the regions would, in effect, be the English parliament, dealing with common issues, whilst allowing the regions to address their own needs and opportunities.
“The national parties should stop telling and start listening to the regions. In a crisis of democracy and legitimacy the answer has to be clear. Democracy is the answer. Anything less is second rate.
“Our aim is to achieve first rate devolution for Yorkshire, to help us build a stronger United Kingdom.