Tories split over plan to limit Scots MPs' say on English laws

Kenneth Clarke, the former chancellor, yesterday released his long-awaited report on the West Lothian Question. At present, Scottish MPs can vote on measures which do not affect Scotland, fuelling resentment among some English voters.

In the five-page report, Mr Clarke calls for MPs with Scottish seats to be banned from voting on English bills at the committee and report stages, where most of the significant changes to laws are made. But they would still be able to vote at the final stage, allowing the government to get its legislation through, albeit in a watered-down form.

Mr Clarke insisted the proposals could help to save the Union, adding: "It's no good waiting until the English get resentful."

However, the former foreign secretary, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, whose own ideas for constitutional reform were rejected by the task force, warned that the measures would lead to accusations that the Conservatives had created "two classes of MP".

Sir Malcolm had called for an English Grand Committee to consider matters that applied only to English constituents.

He said that under Mr Clarke's plans controversial laws, such as the fox-hunting ban and the introduction of tuition fees, would still be pushed through by Scots MPs.

The plans would allow all MPs to vote on a bill at second reading, meaning that it could be approved in principle, even if it was unacceptable to a majority of MPs representing English seats.

"Thus the legislation on tuition fees, foundation hospitals or fox-hunting would still have been approved," Sir Malcolm said.

He added that restricting MPs from voting at stages of a bill would "for the first time in our history, (create] a prohibition on MPs voting in divisions that were taking place, not in committee, but in the House as a whole".

Sir Malcolm continued: "As over 100 MPs could be affected by such a prohibition, this would give rise to accusations, however unfair, of there being two classes of MP."

Some activists say the plans do not go far enough to wrest power away from Scots. But Mr Clarke has dismissed calls for an English parliament as too costly and burdensome, asking why the nation wanted to go back to its "medieval kingdoms".

The Scotsman also understands there are concerns among clerks and whips about how such a bill would be implemented and voted on.

However, the policies have the approval of David Cameron, the Conservative leader, and Nick Herbert, the shadow justice secretary, endorsed Mr Clarke's policy at the launch in London.

He warned that English resentment would increase unless a Tory government "grasped the thistle". He added: "The tragedy is that Labour have created new grievances in England. It must be right to act now to address a question which, if left unanswered, will allow English resentment to ferment."

Labour believes the Tories are seeking to exploit the so-called West Lothian Question because it underscores Prime Minister Gordon Brown's Scottishness.

But Mr Clarke said: "His unpopularity has nothing to do with his Scottishness. I do wish he would stop boring us by going on about how he loves to fly the St George's flag.

"He obviously feels he has to demonstrate his Britishness.

"It is the man, his personality and his measures which make him extremely unpopular."

Mr Clarke's proposed measures were rubbished by other parties and the government.

Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, said the policy showed Mr Cameron would take risks with the Union.

"His official policy of 'English votes for English laws' would lead to the break-up of the UK. Ken Clarke acknowledges that 'English votes for English laws' would lead to a constitutional crisis and destroy the Union, which is why he has recommended David Cameron should abandon his anti-Union policy."

David Howarth, the Liberal Democrats' legal affairs spokesman, said: "This is a feeble non-solution to a problem best addressed by more fundamental change to our unfair electoral system."

His party colleague, Alistair Carmichael, the MP for Orkney and Shetland, said the Clarke plans would still "create a situation whereby the government of the day could be unable to implement its own policies. This is a recipe for constitutional chaos".

How the proposals would work in parliament

How would the voting rights of Scots MPs differ from the current arrangement?

MPs representing Scottish seats would not be allowed to vote on the committee and report stages of a bill if it applied to England only.

What happens at the committee and report stages of a bill?

There is detailed examination, debate and amendments. At the report stage, there is the chance to make further amendments.

What would happen under a scenario on, say, foundation hospitals, which was voted through on the back of votes from Scottish Labour MPs?

It could have still gone through. Scots would not have been allowed to vote or impose amendments at the committee stage, but their votes would have been used to pass the government's legislation at the final reading.

But if all MPs, including Scots, can vote on the third reading, won't they still influence the outcome?

Yes. The Conservatives have said the government should be able to use its majority to get its legislation through. But at third reading there are no amendments, so the government would have to accept whatever happened at committee or report stage or risk losing the Bill.

Is this the last constitutional anomaly left?

Arguably, the funding settlement distributed by the Barnett Formula causes as much of a grievance, if not more, than voting rights.

It is unclear whether the Conservatives have plans to address this and it will take even longer to resolve than the so-called West Lothian Question.