Chris Vine has received another reply from the Ministry of Justice on the West Lothian Question. Previously Chris had suggested that using the Barnett Formula as justification for Scottish MPs voting on English issues was a make weight argument, because he believed the government would still want Scottish MPs to vote on English matters ‘even if the Barnett formula were to be replaced by a system of assigned revenues with needs based top-up‘.
The Ministry of Justice did not deny it:
The argument that the Barnett consequentials of ‘English only’ legislation may effect other constituent nations of the United Kingdom and so ought to be voted on by all Members of Parliament is not a make-weight. Funding is provided by general taxation, drawn from the across the United Kingdom. It is a matter of both general, and specific importance. Both in relation to the principles upon which it is spent, and the specific instance or policy which it is being spent to further. That the expenditure of public money should have effect in one area as a direct consequence of expenditure in another (in this case Scotland and England) is, in a Union Parliament reason enough to enable all Members to vote on that expenditure. But the core principle at stake is simply that all Members of Parliament are equal on the floor of the House, and have and ought to have equal voting rights.
Chris concludes, I think correctly, that the MoJ ‘have planted their standard on a mound of sand‘ by advocating a system of bad governance whereby Scottish MPs may ‘take decisions on detailed education or health matters in England, not on the merits of the decisions for those subject to them, but on the ground that they may result indirectly in too much or too little expenditure in Scotland‘.
This revelation would appear to be more of a justification of Ken Clarke’s solution (where the detail of the bill is decided by English MPs) than the Very Simple Solution advocated by Chris.
I have a Very Simple Solution (TM), which is to borrow from the precedent of the House of Lords, namely to confer the power to delay legislation for a session.
I think an arrangement could be devised that if at third reading a particular Bill or separate part of a Bill were not to receive the approval of the majority of members for the countries to which the laws are to apply, then it could only be passed by enactment of the same Bill or part in the following session. That would allow the government to govern, whilst also respecting the position of those in England or Wales and their representatives. This approach may possibly also need to be applied to the Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments stage of Bills originating in the Commons, by taking a further “in principle” vote at that stage, but that is a matter of finesse.
It’s been my view for a while that the Barnett Formula is the only real justification for Scottish MPs voting on English matters. Not a moral justification, but a constitutional justification because spending in England determines Scotland’s block grant. The West Lothian Question and Barnett Formula are intricately tied. It’s essential for Gordon Brown to resist calls for financial federalism because the logical extension of such a move is political federalism. If the devolved administrations fund their devolved portfolios from taxes raised directly then a proportion of the money available to the Treasury to be spent in England becomes manifestly English, and should logically be the responsibility of English MPs.
Equally, part of, say, Scotland’s funding becomes manifestly Scottish, which theoretically diminishes Westminster’s sovereign right to dictate how it is spent
Essentially the Barnett Formula is a centralising formula that binds Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to England’s spending plans (or rather Westminster’s), so preventing policy divergence by dint of the fact that the financial apron strings have not been cut. Devolution should have been on the basis that the devolved administrations can deviate from the centre, but only if they are prepared to pay for it through tax hikes. This would have been a basis for better more responsible devolved government, it would have represented real devolution. He who pays the piper calls the tune.
