Alan Trench: Answer to West Lothian question still unclear
Conservatives would like only English MPs to vote on English laws but it’s not that simple
The UK government’s announcement of its commission on the West Lothian question is an attempt to resolve an insoluble problem. The West Lothian question – the anomaly that Scottish MPs can vote on matters like health or education that affect England, but English ones cannot vote on similar matters for Scotland as they are devolved – is a logical consequence of asymmetric devolution. If all parts of the UK had devolution, it would not arise. Because Scotland elects predominately Labour MPs at Westminster, and few if any Conservatives, this constitutional anomaly gets a lot of political air.
Conservative MPs feel a strong sense of grievance about the question, which also has resonance with the general public in England. The anomaly is not just a theoretical problem; Scottish MPs accounted for the Labour UK government’s majority on key votes that brought in “top-up” higher education fees in England and created foundation hospitals. If Scottish Labour MPs hadn’t been loyal to the party whip when some of their English colleagues rebelled, these policies would not have reached the statute book.
More generally, Scottish MPs (being free of constituency pressures about “English” issues) tend to be more obedient to the party line than English ones. Conservatives see Scotland as a land of Labour lobby-fodder, skewing the electoral system even further against them. The Tory party has fought all the post-devolution UK elections with commitments to some form of “English votes for English laws” in their manifestoes. That commitment explains why we have this commission: Conservative policy may have been clear but it is not shared by the Liberal Democrats.
Sorting out the West Lothian question is easier said than done, though. There are three basic solutions to the problem. One is an English Parliament, within a federal structure for the United Kingdom. However, that is problematic if the goal is to maintain the Union, as so unbalanced a union (England is 85 per cent of the UK’s population) would not be stable and would probably not be sustainable. No similarly unbalanced federal system has lasted more than a few years.
The second option is the “Stormont discount” – reducing the number of MPs from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as happened for Northern Ireland between 1922 and 1972. The problem with that is that it means Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have a reduced say on matters like health in England – but their say on non-devolved matters like defence or foreign affairs is also reduced. The Stormont discount is a blunt instrument to solve complex problems.
The third option is “English votes for English laws” or EVEL, as promoted by the Conservatives. This is an “in and out” solution; MPs would be eligible to take part in some votes but not others, depending on the constituency they represent. It creates serious problems too; it would be very hard to implement, and creates problems of “governability” if the party with an overall majority at Westminster doesn’t also have a majority of English seats. That is a problem for Labour but not the Conservatives – Labour might be in a position to form a UK government without a majority of English seats, but the Conservatives would not.
The practicalities of EVEL are pretty daunting too. Westminster legislation commonly touches on a variety of parts of the UK; some clauses in a typical bill will relate only to England, others to England and Wales, or Great Britain, or England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Sorting out which provisions only affect England will be quite a challenge for those in charge of drafting legislation, forcing Whitehall to change deeply-ingrained habits.
Moreover, some legislation on devolved matters needs – under the Sewel convention – to be considered at Westminster too, so MPs from devolved governments should be entitled to vote on that. It will also be a challenge for those responsible for legislation in Parliament, who will have to make sure that the right clauses are flagged in the right way, and only those MPs eligible vote or speak on them.
Although EVEL is fraught with problems, there is little reason to believe that it is an answer to the problem with wider appeal. Even if it is the first step, it will not be the last. Data from the Institute for Public Policy Research, due for publication next week, suggest a growing number of English voters are concerned about the “unfairness” of the present arrangements and want something more than a limited change at Westminster. What solution they might want – or how that might work – is less clear. Altering Westminster procedures may be popular among Tory MPs, and appears to have much wider public support, but it does not provide a positive solution to the problems of representing England in a devolved and increasingly decentralised UK.
However, the McKay Commission is weighted toward finding technical solutions to a narrowly defined problem. The commission’s remit limits it to looking at how the House of Commons deals with legislation.
Moreover, the commission has been set up as a body of independent experts to advise about solutions, not to redefine the problem.
The key decisions remain to be taken by politicians after the commission has reported. As its report is due in the next Westminster session (before May 2013), that probably means we reach decision time at some point in 2013-14. Given growing concerns in England, though, this is unlikely to be able to tackle the issues that now need to be addressed.
• Alan Trench is an honorary senior research fellow at the constitution unit, University College London
Email to a friend
Print this page- Alan Pattullo: Dignity, not sanctimony, is required at Parkhead
- 300 jobs at risk as Ryanair axes five Edinburgh routes
- Suzanne Pilley trial: I kissed her goodbye then never saw her again, says would-be lover
- Rangers administration: Craig Whyte’s promise to step aside and hand Rangers over to fans ‘ludicrous’
- David Cameron is playing into the SNP’s hands, says Michael Forsyth
- Scottish independence: Spectre of border controls raised by top Tory
- David Cameron is playing into the SNP’s hands, says Michael Forsyth
- Scottish independence: Alex Salmond hits back at Tory ‘Bourbons’ in battle over devo-max
- Scottish independence: Anti-Scottish jibes boost separation, Michael Gove warns Right
- Scottish independence: Let Scotland vote on independence in 19 months, says Michael Moore
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Edinburgh
Thursday 23 February 2012
Today
Light rain
Temperature: 7 C to 14 C
Wind Speed: 26 mph
Wind direction: South west
Tomorrow
Sunny spells
Temperature: 5 C to 10 C
Wind Speed: 29 mph
Wind direction: West
Comments
There are 18 comments to this article
Page 1 of 2
Independence for England
Friday, January 20, 2012 at 12:13 PM# 16 You are wrong I'm afraid. The devolved nations governments have no say in English affairs. Devolved nations Westminster MPs do. It is in David Cameron's capacity as British PM that he is taking his actions on the referendum #17 Thanks for you offer of support. May I suggest however that you concentrate your energies on persuading the Scottish people to vote YES in a referendum on Scottish indepepdnece.
glassbenmhor
Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 11:49 PMIndependence for England we are all 100% with your endeavors, were up here but I'm sure will offer help where and whenever we can because it's the right and neighborly thing to do, we wish you well.
SiônJones
Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 08:13 PM#8 - English Independence - You won't find a Celtic nationalist that disagree with you. Of course, there will have to be a referendum in England , run by the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish governments together, at a date of their choosing, with a question worded by them. If you want to know why this is necessary, just ask David Cameron.
The Answer
Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 04:00 PMBreakdown of seat allocation for 2015 Westminster election.................. 83 . . . South East .................................................................................... 68 . . . London ......................................................................................... 68 . . . North West ................................................................................... 56 . . . East ................................................................................................ 54 . . . West Midlands ............................................................................. 53 . . . South West .................................................................................... 52 . . . scotland ......................................................................................... 50 . . . Yorkshire ....................................................................................... 44 . . . East Midlands ................................................................................ 30 . . . Wales ............................................................................................ 26 . . . North East ..................................................................................... 16 . . . N Ireland.
Ken S.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 03:42 PMThis panel is a waste of time. Its narrow, technical remit examines the doubtful feasibility of a proposal aimed at heading off discontent in England. We have reached a stage where even if feasible it would be too little, too late from a southern perspective. From a northerly perspective, I suspect that any resulting proposals to restrict the involvement of Scottish MPs in UK parliamentary business would boost the independence cause. Looking at the composition of the panel, I can’t see how it can enthuse the English public, given that there are representatives of the devolved areas but not of England. The subject is ENGLISH votes for ENGLISH laws, after all! The other three members are participating as overall UK parliamentary experts. Of those, the chairman is a distinguished Scot and, whilst one fully accepts that he will be objective as a UK expert, it adds to the perception that England isn’t getting a look-in on a topic that purports to solve its problem. What there needs to be is a Commission that reviews the whole business of how the Union could be improved in a way that is equitable to all four component territories. This should be held prior to a Scottish referendum. If the outcome was nevertheless for independence then so be it but at least the Union cause would have had a proper run for its money. At the moment, it’s just a case of rearranging the deckchairs as the boat goes down – and even then niggling about how they should be arranged.
Ken S.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 03:00 PM#8 billalba ........................................................."why should there have been a cut to Scottish funding because Westminster decided that English Universities were no longer going to be funded." Barnett Formula, maybe? Just as an increase in English funding produces extra for Scotland.
samcoldstream
Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 02:32 PMOnce the Boundary Commission proposals come into effect, there will be even less MPs in Scotland(52), Northern Ireland(16) and Wales(30) but England(502) will still have an overwhelming advantage at Westminster.
douglas-home rule
Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 01:27 PMThe solution is obviously , a federal UK or Independence. I may be wrong , but there does not appear to be a Scot on this Commission. Isnt this an anomaly? The North Britain Question, perhaps.
Broon Bairn
Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 01:05 PM9. Good show. I wish England well. Just what it needs - to get a grip of itself once again. Good luck with your endeavours!
Independence for England
Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 12:06 PMThe fourth, and my and many other English people's preferred option, is for England to declare independence and leave the UK.
billalba
Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 09:43 AM#4 which is why it is difficult to define English only issues...the funding cut that Scotland had to endure as a direct result of the cut in funding to English universities is a prime example...why should there have been a cut to Scottish funding because Westminster decided that English Universities were no longer going to be funded.
Broon Bairn
Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 09:30 AMWell, for years now, the SNP has abstained from voting in Westminster on purely English issues - as a matter of policy. Of course, the simple answer to this problem is - independence. For goodness' sake, Tam Dalyell raised this Question nearly 40 years ago!
Hearthammer
Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 09:30 AM#1, exactly. Then we wouldn't have Stephen spouting gash!
StephenGash
Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 09:06 AMWe are told an Englishman cannot head the pro-unionist campaign in Scotland come the independence neverendum, not for any racist reasons you understand. However, we in England are expected to put up with a Scottish Prime Minister making policies for England that will never happen in his own country, Scotland. Alan Trench's opposition to an English parliament denies the English democratic equality. The West Lothian Question is not the same as the far more important English Question. The latter is about England not having its own First Minister and executive.
StephenGash
Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 09:01 AM@ glassbenmnor The SNP voted on Heathrow's third runway and tuition fees to name but two.
Page 1 of 2
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.