Wednesday, July 12, 2006

English Votes for English Measures Is a Band-Aid Solution

I've written the article below for Comment is Free. Interestingly it has attracted some quite positive comments from people of all political persuasions.

On the eve of the 1997 election, John Major foresaw the acts of constitutional vandalism Labour would enact if it won the election. He warned Tony Blair would "do our union to death". That may have been a rather lurid description, but Major was one of the few politicians of the time to understand the consequences of devolution for the Welsh and Scots. He knew that it would give rise to demands from England for a level playing field. Nine years on those demands are becoming more vociferous.

The response from the Conservatives is to solve the West Lothian question by proposing that Scottish MPs should be banned from voting on English-only measures. On the face of it, it's a proposal which is easy to explain, easy to sell, and completely logical. As an interim and short-term band-aid, it should be supported. But, as a long-term solution, it is flawed.

There are two reasons the Conservative Party needs to be wary of adopting this as its only policy response to the creation of a Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly. Firstly, it is easy to portray "English votes for English measures" as being "anti-Scottish". It isn't, but that's how Conservative opponents will portray it. This is already Labour's first line of attack, with a source close to Gordon Brown brazenly declaring that "there is only one party which represents the union and is prepared to stand up for the union, and that is the Labour Party."

Whether the author of these words managed to keep a straight face isn't reported. The subtext of Conservative briefings has been that it might now be impossible for a Scottish MP to become prime minister of the United Kingdom. While it's a good way to needle Gordon Brown, it reinforces the prejudice of those Scots who wish to think ill of the Conservatives.
It also cements in the mind of the Welsh and the Scots that the Conservatives are, first and foremost, an English party. The Conservative leadership must realise that, if it is to win an overall majority, seats must be won in Scotland and Wales. In Wales, in particular, the party is in good heart. Nothing should be done that could undermine the real progress it is making in the run-up to next year's assembly elections.

Secondly, English votes for English measures would do little to address the constitutional deficit the English now suffer. Not only do the Scots enjoy nearly £2000 more per head of public expenditure under the Barnett formula, they also have their own parliament to administer Scottish-only issues, such as transport, education and health - as do the Welsh with their Assembly. Meanwhile, English students have had tuition fees inflicted on them because of the votes of Scottish MPs.

There are only two ways to right this wrong. The first is for the Conservative Party to consider abolishing outright the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly. While this is attractive in some ways, as both have failed to enhance their reputations during their short existence, the Conservative Party would do well to avoid this route. David Cameron has already made clear his commitment to "making devolution work", and he's right.

So, the Conservatives should adopt a three-stage policy. Such a policy would stand the best chance of achieving Cameron's goal of rewriting the constitutional settlement to make it fair to all component parts of the United Kingdom, and would do further damage to the union. English Votes for English Measures can be the first stage of this process, but Cameron should be clear it is just that, and not pretend that it is the final word. The second stage is to invite a full debate on English devolution and end up with the establishment of a cross party English Constitutional Convention. Having set up such a convention in Scotland prior to devolution, Labour would find itself in a difficult position. They let the genie of devolution out of the bottle, so it is difficult to see how Labour could oppose a convention, although oppose it they surely would.

The third stage of the policy would be to allow a referendum on the creation of a full-blown English Parliament with, crucially, none of the bureaucracy and extravagance associated with its equivalents in Scotland and Wales. At the same time, the Welsh Assembly should be upgraded to a Parliament.

So why is the Conservative Party so reluctant to go this far? My only conclusion is that it is afraid of the consequences.

Understandably, there are fears about the future of the union. Opponents of an English Parliament have been very successful in creating a number of myths. The first is that it would lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom. The UK has survived for 300 years. Few supporters of an English Parliament would wish the UK to be fragmented into four entirely separate nations. The bigger danger to the future of the UK is if the issue is not addressed, and the sense of injustice engendered by the status quo is allowed to fester.

The second myth suggests that England would dominate the union if it had its own parliament. Not so. Each parliament would be responsible for policy and public spending within its own territory. England would be no more dominant than it is at present.

Critics also suggest that an English Parliament would create yet another tier of government and be an unnecessary expense. It certainly needn't be. It could sit in the Houses of Parliament and the Constitutional Convention would be tasked with ensuring that unnecessary bureaucracy and expense is avoided.

This is not an easy issue for any political party to address. But it will not go away. English devolution is actively being considered by the Liberal Democrats, as well as the Conservatives. Various Lib Dem politicians have made polite overtures to the English parliament lobby but, in the end, have hesitated to adopt it as policy. However, they are clearly thinking about it. The Conservatives would be very unwise to be outflanked on this by Ming Campbell.

Ken Clarke's Democracy Task Force should at the very least make clear they will consider the merits of proposing an English Constitutional Convention. It would suggest that the party is thinking further than the short term band-aid of English Votes for English Measures and it has the added advantage of putting both the Labour Party and the Lib Dems on the spot.

28 comments:

Anonymous said...

"with, crucially, none of the bureaucracy and extravagance associated with its equivalents in Scotland and Wales." -- that's the crux of the problem. I don't believe it would do without the extravagance and bureaucracy. You haven't convinced me that EVfEL isn't a far superior solution. Your first point is party political and Labour will shut up once it's done; your second is surely much more easily resolved with a bit of tinkering, far from the sweeping changes you propose. Government projects almost always end up as white elephants and all the soothing words in the world won't convince me that this is overwhelmingly likely to end up another one.

Anonymous said...

Malcolm Rifkind's solution of an English Grand Committee is the best solution to date to resolve the West Lothian Question. Us Buckfast-swilling Jocks had a Scottish Grand Committee before the shining light (sorry the pocket-lining MSP shite) of devolution. Interestingly the Scottish Grand Committee could only debate and not vote, due to the shortage of Scottish Conservative MPs....

Jock Coats said...

You shouldn't prejudge the outcomes of an "English Constitutional Convention".

The Union is "nice" in a nostalgic sort of a way, and "England" as a constituent part of that Union seems to have some logic as the level at which to represent the "English".

But you know, I resented having a Geordie responsible for my local health services when Millburn was there and so on.

Regional government has had a bad rap since Prezza mangled it (I understand it was really his pride and joy - so why he couldn't get it right I'll never understand). But if it came to a constitutional convention my vote would be to take back as much of my own sovereignty as possible and only surrender upwards what we couldn't do more locally.

In this day and age I actually see very little that needs to be decided and managed at a national, or "federal" level such as an English parliament or Westminster would become. I'm not enamoured of the Euro-regions by the way - that would all need renegotiating. I have nothing against Kent, but here in Oxfordshire I am an Oxonian first, and then perhaps a sort of south midlands/Cotswold/Chiltern type person, with very little connection with Kent or Sussex or the Isle of Wight.

Anonymous said...

Wonderful , even more career politicians in a powerless talking shop beholden to to the Treasury for funding.

Yeah, that'll work....

It would be far more democratic to undo 100 odd years of centralisation and hand the power for Health, Welfare, Education, Law and Order et al back to unitary local authorities.

Giving them all the power they need to vary rates and if necessary enough rope to hang themselves with.

Profligate class warriors in town halls will not be able to blame 'the govt' if surrounding authorities are doing a better job for the same outlay.

Follow that up by scrapping just about every ministry except the Foreign Office, The Treasury and the MOD. A long over due cull on the residents of most if not all of Whitehall is essential.

Taking a sharp hatchet to the Treasury responsbilities and strictly limiting it's remit to revenue raising and distribution of said revenue.

With all indirect taxes (fuel, alcohol and tobacco duty) & direct taxation on say the 1st 100k of salaries going straight back to where they were raised

With the remainder distributed nationally on a per capita basis.


By doing so, funding for the Welsh and Scottish talking shops becomes an issue for their electorates alone.

They will be getting the exact same deal as everyone else in the country. It's upto them then to cut their cloth to fit.

We do not need a.n other tier of partisan posturing politicos.

Of course the likelihood of westminster turkeys voting for xmas is.....

greg

Anonymous said...

Yes - it is too obvious: replace the House of Lords with an English Parliament. You can even keep the English law lords in it and revive some of the old names, eg Lord Chamberlain for English Parliament PM (and thereby avoid any confusion with the "Prime Minister of England" as foreigners know the real PM). Actually, you could even call the members Lords or Ladies. Perfect C/conservative solution.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Iain. This analysis is totally right. I joined the Conservatives for many reasons but high amongst them was because Conservatives were the party of the union. I've never felt ashamed of being a Tory but Alan Duncan's comments brought me close.
As a Scot living in England I understand how it looks from both ends and imho EVfEL as a long term solution is a sure fire way of destroying the union.
As you say the genie is out the bottle. The only way to save the union is to fully devolve power in England.
Oh and it's not my fault I voted No,No.

Scipio said...

The only answer is a federal Britain, but this has to be balanced by the fact that the last thing we need is yet another set of politicians, and the bureacracy which will follow like a bad smell. I think that a way of avoiding this is to have MPs elected in dual roles. I.e. they have the same constituency bundries for both the national and British parliament, which the elected MP then represents at both the relevant national and British Parlaiment, with each parliament dealing with its own reserved powers. This also gives the MP a degree of expertise across national and British political issues. The short fall of this idea is that it then raises questions about how Governbments are formed. I will leave this to the constitutional specialist to decide, but ultimately, some kind of federal resolution is required.

Jock Coats said...

Wonderful , even more career politicians in a powerless talking shop beholden to to the Treasury for funding.

No no - that's certainly not what I meant by "regional". I mean as local as possible. Not necessarily the same boundaries as currently - you can't justify a regional hospital like the Radcliffe for a city of just 150,000 for example so some things would involve clubbing together - I just call that "regional" for shorthand, rather than "national".

Oxfordshire has the same population as Vermont. Why can't it govern like Vermont?

Anonymous said...

An English Parliament might be the Big Idea to take Cameron into office, but whilst it sounds good and in many ways would be good, I am very sceptical it would truly not be a vast extra expense; there is such a tendancy to self-glorification and egomania on the part of "elected representatives" and they wouldn't for example be able to resist some sparkling new mega-parliament in Chester or York or wherever it would be, very large salaries and perks and so on and so on. Millions more on our backs for some marginal satisfaction of constitutional irritants that are mainly the obsession of political nerds. It would be more appropriate to focus fire on the EU - have the message that whilst we accept the EU in principle, the commission in practise is a vast and stunning waste of money consumed on opulent lifestyles by an indolent secretariat living the high life in Brussels and Strasbourg. We need leaner government, not yet another layer of it.

Jock Coats said...

And, I firmly believe that's why Prezza's regionalisation failed. Where was the corresponding reduction in Westminster and Whitehall?

I vote for Lib Dem PPCs, for example, on the implicit understanding that they'd vote to sack themselves if they possibly could! Of course, I never know whether they really would or not, but I hope they would.

Jock Coats said...

Hmmm - I'm sure I heard the statistic that Europe has fewer civil servants than Oxfordshire...:)

Man in a Shed said...

Good article. Comment is free is the right place for this as there needs to be cross party discussion, followed by some trust, and finally agreement on this - somehow.

Anonymous said...

Whilst Inspector Knacker is in Israel discussing extradition (next week I assume) maybe he could have a word with the construction company that built the wall on the border with Gazza - we don't need a whole new wall here but a little extending and fortification of Hadrian's Wall should sort out the problem in short order.

Anonymous said...

Jock coats - "fewer civil servants than Oxfordshire" - the EU propagandists in the London representation often trot this tired lie out. The Commission alone directly employs more than 135,000 people on a staggering budget of 862 billion Euros - that's right, more than half a trillion pounds - much of which is unaccountably spent. The EU Auditors repeatedly refuse to sign off the accounts. The EU also indirectly (through the ever-growing labyrinth of Agencies, EU Quangos) employs a further 312,000 people. Kind of puts Oxfordshire in the shade don't it. And this is just what they tell us about - presumably there are all kinds of hidden programmes and secret Black Ops initiatives such as how to take control should the public ever get really mobilised about this, how to dispose of Euro assets to the Swiss bank accounts of EU commissioners and their families should it all melt down, etc, etc.

Anonymous said...

I'm confused expat - is Gazza playing for Palestine now? And is he full of tears?

Anonymous said...

Good point Anonymous but Gazza has given up any idea of playing football and now believes that he may have a shot at DPM (he is probably over qualified). The tears at Labour HQ, No. 10 and in particular at No. 11.

Croydonian said...

I am in favour of a parliament for England for two reasons - 1, to redress the democratic deficit here, and 2, to balance the union.

I do not want Scotland to be a foreign country, nor come to that Wales or Ulster.

Tim Roll-Pickering said...

"there is only one party which represents the union and is prepared to stand up for the union, and that is the Labour Party."

LOL! So where is the North Down Constituency Labour Party? Nice to be reminded on July 12th of all days that Labour are a "Brits only" party.

Richard Bailey said...

Iain, The whole issue of the Conservatives looking anti-Scottish is a red herring. I am Scottish in large part and was brought up there and served in a Scottish Regiment. Trust me, the Conservatives are already seen as English. Cameron has absolutely nothing to lose. Indeed, it is for Scottish Conservatives to win the ideological battle for themselves. Scottish Tories must plough their own furrow to survive or prosper.
The wonderful thing, and the very thing that has pissed Scotland off for so long, is that a government can be elected regardless of Scotland's vote.
The Scots will have grudging respect for Cameron that he accepts the situation, and wants to sort out the mess. They will even tolerate a Tory government now that much of the sting has been removed.
The Union could eaasily be stronger for it.

towcestarian said...

Jock, are we still that regional in England that we think Geordieland is somehow in a different country than Kent? I think that was the real reason that Regional assemblies were so unpopular - people felt more affinity with the nation than with their region - especially cobbled together nonsense regions like "The East Midlands".

However, as a non-Unionist right-wingers, I'm all in favour of full independence, which is an ideal way of getting rid of swathes of socialist MPs from parliament. Which is exactly the reason that New Labour are so dead against it. Lets face it, hell will freeze over before Wales and Scotland return significant numbers of right-wing MPs.

Anonymous said...

"The second myth suggests that England would dominate the union if it had its own parliament. Not so. Each parliament would be responsible for policy and public spending within its own territory. England would be no more dominant than it is at present."

And that's the point you unwittingly make - that England does and will dominate any union. It was amusing to see you refer to the English as wanting a level playing field after 7 years of devolution, when England has dominated the Houses of Parliament for so long.

Please, no moaning about Lloyd George, Kinnock, Brown or other Scottish and Welsh parliamentary figures... these Celts played the British game to gain power (Brown painfully so).

That game is coming to an end, thank goodness. If the Tories opt for English Votes for English Issues then it will another nail in the coffin of the UK - excellent.

Anonymous said...

I remember hearing somewhere that the 3 smallest constituencies are based in Scotland (with around 30k people) (and all Labour seats) and the largest single constituency is the Isle of White (just over 100k people) (Tory). Now before any talk of the West Lothian Question can be raised there must be some debate the over representation of Scotland?

Anonymous said...

The need to ensure that the creation of an English parliament is not accompanied by the creation of additional bureaucracy is the key issue.

The English Parliament should have responsibility for matters other than Foreign Affairs and Defence. Control of the bureaucracy associated with all the function of the English Parliament could be transferred directly from the UK Parliament.

The issue is then what to do with Foreign Affairs and Defence. Do we need a separate parliament just to deal with these matters. The answer is surely the pooling of sovereignty over these matters under the European Union's Common Foreign & Security Policy.

This ensures that the creation of an English Parliament doesn't result in an extra layer of government for England, with the associated bureaucracy. It also results in one less layer of government for Scotland and Wales.

Ken Clarke is just the right man to lead this constitutional reform.

Anonymous said...

there is a point being missed here.

What's the population of scotland? about 6m people? an english parliament would still create an imbalance being an incredibly powerful influence in the UK. And anyway, in an English parliament there would be complaints over the dominance of the SE

The NW on its own has a population of over 7m, with the population of Greater Manchester alone in the same ballpark as wales and some form of regional govt with the same powers as exist in wales would be one way, and perhaps a more appropriate way of restoring the balance

the regional offer presented by the govt was incredibly poor and would never have been accepted anywhere in the UK but done properly would extend the model already in existence in scotland and wales

Anonymous said...

Interesting article Iain, it was measured and sensible.
Sadly, I think that any sensible considered solution to this might get lost in the rise in anti Scottish sentiment which has been expressed recently. Just experienced it first hand on a trip to England recently. The fact that my young children were with me did not deter someone from expressing their opinion of where the Scots should go!
As someone who voted against devolution and is angry at the way Labour has handled the whole situation I resent the way that the Scots are being portrayed in this whole mess.
Has anyone bothered to ask what we think of Holyrood and the people who are now running it? Does anyone bother to wonder if the Scots think they are getting value for money? Anyone looked at the state of Scottish hospitals and schools and other public services recently, you might be surprised to discover that we are not getting a good service considering that over 400 million went on that eyesore in Edinburgh.
And I will support a review of the Barnett formula when I see an honest considered debate about the whole question taking into account the geography and scattered population of Scotland.

Anonymous said...

English Parliament.........

Hmmm, many people assume this has to be a NEW English Parliament in the same way that there was a NEW Scottish Parliamenta and NEW Welsh Assembly.

If you take some time out to think it through, then this is simply not the case.

In a federal or commonwealth model as devised for Australia & Canada by the BRITISH, then we could simply move forward by making the Scottish, Welsh and Irish MP's from the House of Commons - redundant - thus changing the House of Commons into an English Parliament

Less Politicians
No new Building

Then we make the House of Lords into and Elected British Senate to deal with 'UK Matters' ie defence, foreign policy - an to act as a 2nd chamber to all four lower houses

ie
England
Scotland
Wales
Ireland (North)

This is a totally logical and fair federal structure. It is only the fact that ALL major parties are dominated by Scots, that no high level politician is putting this idea forward.

Steve Uncles
English Democrats

Anonymous said...

Sorry, Iain, I disagree with you on this one - in my view EVOEM is slightly flawed, but the best workable compromise.

Pre-devolution, things were relatively straightforward - we had two chambers. The HoC mostly responsible for raising primary legislation, and the HoL appointed/hereditory (I don't agree with the hereditory bit, but it's a statement of fact, not an endorsement here) that was responsible in the main for revision and scrutiny.

Post-devolution, I am unsure about the workings of the devolved parliaments. They are primary legislating chambers for devolved powers, but do they have a scrutinising/revisionary counter check? If not, then I think that a similarly devolved English Parliament would have a severe flaw. If the HoL remains the revision/scrutiny chamber, then without EVEOM then it would still raise WLQ type questions.

Added to that, I can discern absolutely no appetite whatsoever in the country for yet another layer of government and elected representatives.

so a constitutional convention on EVEOM, IMHO, is the best workable compromise, preserviing checks and balances on an elected primary legislature, whilst at the same time minimising government.

Some have raised the prospect that a Scottish Home Secretary or Prime Minister would not be possible with EVEOM - I do not see this at all. They would not be able to vote on their legislation, that is all. A company director is not necessarily a shareholder, to use a direct analogy.

It would, however, mean that the holder of the position would actually need to listen to the views of voting MPs when raising legislation on those matters, though!

You may argue that MPs from devolved parts of the UK would have less to do than their English counterparts and yet enjoy the same benefits. Well, this is true, but I would rather put up with this small anomaly than fund the huge expenditure of a separate English Parliament. If experience from the Scottish Parliament has taught us anything, it is that these things will never, ever be cheap.

EVEOM also means that devolution can be tailored to the most appropriate level. So, for instance, the Welsh Assembly (I also favour upgrading this to a parliament, btw) could have a different set of devolved powers than the Scottish Parliament, and no constitutional mess or fudge would be necessary in order to deal with this.

Finally, I fear that a full English Parliament really would be the first step on the road to full breakup of the Union, and that would, I fear, leave us all the poorer for it.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, Iain, I disagree with you on this one - in my view EVOEM is slightly flawed, but the best workable compromise.

Pre-devolution, things were relatively straightforward - we had two chambers. The HoC mostly responsible for raising primary legislation, and the HoL appointed/hereditory (I don't agree with the hereditory bit, but it's a statement of fact, not an endorsement here) that was responsible in the main for revision and scrutiny.

Post-devolution, I am unsure about the workings of the devolved parliaments. They are primary legislating chambers for devolved powers, but do they have a scrutinising/revisionary counter check? If not, then I think that a similarly devolved English Parliament would have a severe flaw. If the HoL remains the revision/scrutiny chamber, then without EVEOM then it would still raise WLQ type questions.

Added to that, I can discern absolutely no appetite whatsoever in the country for yet another layer of government and elected representatives.

so a constitutional convention on EVEOM, IMHO, is the best workable compromise, preserviing checks and balances on an elected primary legislature, whilst at the same time minimising government.

Some have raised the prospect that a Scottish Home Secretary or Prime Minister would not be possible with EVEOM - I do not see this at all. They would not be able to vote on their legislation, that is all. A company director is not necessarily a shareholder, to use a direct analogy.

It would, however, mean that the holder of the position would actually need to listen to the views of voting MPs when raising legislation on those matters, though!

You may argue that MPs from devolved parts of the UK would have less to do than their English counterparts and yet enjoy the same benefits. Well, this is true, but I would rather put up with this small anomaly than fund the huge expenditure of a separate English Parliament. If experience from the Scottish Parliament has taught us anything, it is that these things will never, ever be cheap.

EVEOM also means that devolution can be tailored to the most appropriate level. So, for instance, the Welsh Assembly (I also favour upgrading this to a parliament, btw) could have a different set of devolved powers than the Scottish Parliament, and no constitutional mess or fudge would be necessary in order to deal with this.

Finally, I fear that a full English Parliament really would be the first step on the road to full breakup of the Union, and that would, I fear, leave us all the poorer for it.