English Votes

Michael Gove, for those of you lucky enough to be unfamiliar with him, is the Scotsman in charge of English education. He's the Scot who likes to change the word 'England' to 'Britain'; he's the Scot who likes to bang on about teaching British history in English schools; the Scot who will not say the word 'England' even when his policy specifically relates to England alone; the Scot who wants to subject English children to Britishness propaganda classes. In short, he's a Scot who goes out of his way to wind up English nationalists and create hostility.

Yesterday, in a speech at Westminster, Gove had this to say:

When some of my colleagues say we need to re-visit the West Lothian Question or we need to have a new settlement that is fairer to people in England, I say 'no, remember the bigger picture'.

Unbelievable! Michael Gove has been a Conservative MP since 2005 when he was elected under the leadership of Michael Howard, who had a policy of English Votes on English Laws. No doubt Michael Gove was planning to become an MP under the leadership of William Hague and Iain Duncan Smith, both of whom also promised English Votes on English Laws. Gove was also a key member of David Cameron's leadership campaign group, a campaign which promised English Votes on English Laws, and which later produced a manifesto promising this:

Labour have refused to address the so-called ‘West Lothian Question’: the unfair situation of Scottish MPs voting on matters which are devolved. A Conservative government will introduce new rules so that legislation referring specifically to England, or to England and Wales, cannot be enacted without the consent of MPs representing constituencies of those countries.

But now, as his countrymen sue for divorce, Gove asks his colleagues to hold back on plans to create a new Union settlement that is fair to the people of England. Michael Gove, you are a weasley little shit.

UPDATE: Some more of Gove's speech via Whitehall 1212

One of the things I wanted to emphasis is that this is an argument that has to be won on several dimensions. Firstly we have to persuade Scotland that its future is stronger in the UK, than it would be if Scotland were to separate. We are stronger as a result of a our common endeavour over 300 years, we’ve achieved amazing things together, we pool risk more effectively, we safeguard the weak more effectively, we project our values because we stand together.”

"There is a threat to that from Scottish separatism, but there is also a threat, under appreciated, from English separatism as well. I think there is a specific threat from my own political tradition.

"There are some people on the right who say the Scots want to leave - let them. That is entirely the wrong attitude. It seems to me to be saying: 'This used to be a warm house where we all used to live together but, frankly - you daft besom -if you want to leave on your own head be it’. These are not the words of someone who wants to keep a marriage together.

"That is why, when some of my colleagues say we need to re-visit the West Lothian Question, or we need to have a new settlement that is fairer to people in England, I say no. Remember the bigger picture.

"The country was Great Britain for a reason, because we stood together and stand together. if we turn inwards and against each other then I feel we will undermine something that is precious and our country will be a diminished presence in the future.

IPPR Press Release

Future of England in a devolved union can’t be decided by expert commission

79% of English voters want Scottish MPs barred from votes on English only laws

Ahead of the launch of the UK Government’s West Lothian Question Commission this week, new polling from the think tank IPPR and Cardiff and Edinburgh Universities, shows overwhelming public support within England for addressing this constitutional anomaly.

In a major new report on English Identity and the politics of the English Question, to be published by IPPR later this month, a survey asks more than 1,500 voters in England whether they agree or disagree that:

“Now that Scotland has its own parliament, Scottish MPs should not be allowed to vote in the House of Commons on laws that affect only England.”

More than half (53 per cent) of voters in England said they ‘strongly agree’, while a further 26 per cent said they ‘agree’. Just 12 per cent ‘disagree’. The report shows that the proportion who ‘strongly disagree’ has more than doubled since 2007.

The creation of a commission to investigate the West Lothian question recognizes the strength of public feeling in England on this issue however the report argues that relying on a commission of experts alone will prove insufficient for considering the future of English governance in a devolved union. The prospect of either Scottish independence or ‘devolution-max’ – either of which would have profound effects on the governance of England and the other nations of the United Kingdom, suggest the time has come for a much wider public debate about the future of the Union and the position of England within it.

Richard Wyn Jones, Professor of Politics at Cardiff University and co-author of the report said:

“While the Coalition is to be applauded for at least broaching this hugely important issue, neither the likely composition nor terms of reference of the new Commission suggest that this represents a serious attempt to finally answer the West Lothian Question.

"But if the intention is to kick the issue into the long grass, this is to reckon without an English electorate that appears increasingly restive and increasingly convinced that the anomalies created by the current devolution arrangements need to be addressed. As this evidence suggests, the English are now overwhelmingly persuaded that a system in which MPs from the devolved territories can vote on legislation that applies only to England is unfair.

"We underestimate the current mood of the English electorate at our peril. In the 1980s the perceived unfairness of a system which allowed left-leaning Scotland and Wales to be governed by a party without a mandate in those countries led to the generation of an unstoppable head of steam leading directly to the devolution reforms of the late 1990s. It is not hard to imagine how a different set of territorial anomalies could create a similar response in England. Indeed, it might already be happening.”

Guy Lodge, IPPR Associate Director, and co-author of the report, said:

“The English electorate strongly believes that the anomaly of the West Lothian question should be addressed. Reform in this area is notoriously difficult and so we welcome the establishment of the Commission to explore possible ways forward. However, as our forthcoming report will show, a narrow focus on the West Lothian question will not be sufficient to satisfy English public opinion. A strengthening of English identity, combined with growing interest in how England is governed, pose an important challenge for the centre-left in particular, which has so far failed to engage with these important developments in England. The time has come for a much wider public debate about what form a new constitutional settlement for England should take. Progressive politics needs to lead and not follow this debate.”

ENDS

Writing in the Telegraph, Dominic Raab MP suggests that the Barnett Formula should be ended and Ken Clarke's non-solution to the West Lothian Question should be adopted:

The deal should include ending the outdated Barnett formula, which currently enshrines public spending per head in Scotland at £1,367 above the UK average. The regional impact is even more skewed. Why is UK spending on housing and community amenities in Scotland 37 per cent higher than in the North East, and double that in the Midlands?

For the sake of democratic equality, we should also adopt the proposal made by Ken Clarke (in opposition) to bar Scottish MPs from voting in Westminster on issues that only affect England, Wales or Northern Ireland at the Committee and Report stages.

Surely the only justification for allowing Scottish MPs to vote on English legislation is the fact that English legislation can have financial implications for Scotland due to the Barnett Formula. Get rid of the Barnett Formula and you also remove any rationale for allowing Scottish MPs to vote on English legislation.

Would Mr Raab care explain to the English why Scottish MPs should have any say in English legislation for which the concomitant Scottish legislation is the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament; where is the benefit to the English in allowing Scottish interference at Second and Third reading?

Mr Raab finishes with a populist flourish:

Rather than fighting on the back foot to save the Union, it’s time to make a big, open and comprehensive offer which combines stronger democratic rights for the Scottish people with terms that are fair to Britain. That way we can put the Union on a sustainable basis for the long term.

How generous of him, I'm sure that the Scots will be eternally grateful. But what about Raab's own constituents? Do they deserve a big, open and comprehensive offer which combines stronger democratic rights for the English people, or are the opinions of English people to be ignored as the other nations of the UK are consulted again and again?

Unionists may joke that nationalists don't know the meaning of the word 'consultation', but they would do well to look at their own record on consultation in regard to the governance of England.

A clipping from David Cameron's personal promotional material from the 2005 Conservative leadership election (see Phil Taylor's blog).

Or soon could be according to Channel Four's Gary Gibbon:

If Alex Salmond gets his way, Scotland could have a referendum at the end of this current term in Holyrood and it could result in Scotland going for a heightened form of devolution – “devolution max” or “devo max” as it’s being called.

So many powers would’ve been transferred to Scotland that the case for whipping away powers over English politics from Scottish MPs would be “unarguable”, one senior Labour source worries. What would that mean for Labour’s chances of forming a majority government in Westminster in the future? “Curtains”, was the word used to me.

Back in 2006, the then Lord Chancellor suggested that if Welsh MPs were to stop voting on English matters they would only be at Westminster for half a day a week. Mind you, Charles Falconer is an idiot or a liar, as evidenced by his 2006 claim that there "is no demand at all for devolution to England or the English MPs only being able to vote on English issues", so let's err on the side of caution and say that Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs would have to be at Westminster one day a week.

William Hague speaking to The Centre for Policy Studies, July 1999:

"English MPs should have exclusive say over English laws. People will become increasingly resentful that decisions are being made in England by people from other parts of the UK on matters that that English people did not have a say on elsewhere. English nationalism will build up. I think it is a dangerous thing to allow resentment to build up in a country. We have got to make the rules fair now."

Under William Hague and (later) Iain Duncan Smith the 2001 Conservative Manifesto said this:

When Parliament is discussing something that affects the whole of the United Kingdom, all MPs should vote. But only English and Welsh MPs will be entitled to vote on Government Bills relating to England and Wales. And English MPs alone will vote on the remaining laws which apply exclusively to England.

Iain Duncan Smith, House of Commons debates, 9 July 2003:

The Prime Minister is reduced to getting MPs who will not even be affected by this change to drive through his legislation for England. He is ploughing on, despite the fact that every single Labour MP stood on a manifesto that said that they would not introduce top-up fees.

Michael Howard, Telegraph, February 2004:

It is clearly wrong that MPs from Scotland should be able to vote on legislation concerning issues which have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament

Under Michael Howard the 2005 Conservative Party Manifesto said this:

Now that exclusively Scottish matters are decided by the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh, exclusively English matters should be decided in Westminster without the votes of MPs sitting for Scottish constituencies who are not accountable to English voters. We will act to ensure that English laws are decided by English votes.

David Cameron interviewed on BBC News 24, January 2007:

I would like to see a system where when the UK Parliament was discussing purely matters that affect English constituencies then only members of Parliament for English constituencies have the final say. I think we could do that, I think it would correct the imbalance. Because at the moment the Scottish Parliament determines health and education up in Scotland and then Scottish MPs come and vote on those things in England. It's not balanced or fair and I think we can sort that out.

Under David Cameron the Conservative Party Manifesto said this:

Labour have refused to address the so-called ‘West Lothian Question’: the unfair situation of Scottish MPs voting on matters which are devolved. A Conservative government will introduce new rules so that legislation referring specifically to England, or to England and Wales, cannot be enacted without the consent of MPs representing constituencies of those countries.

After a decade of informing everyone who demanded an English Parliament that English Votes on English Laws was the answer to the governance of England, suddenly - now that they're in government - they don't seem so sure about it. This is what David Mundell had to say on the matter in the House of Commons on 21 July 2010:

My hon. Friend will be aware that the coalition agreement specifically commits this Government to establishing a commission to look at the West Lothian question. We will bring forward proposals in the autumn.

Notice he didn't say which Autumn.

The following is a partial transcript of Radio Four's Beyond Westminster programme, broadcast 16th Apr 2011.

Richard Wyn Jones: The elephant on the doorstep is the fact that the UK Government for many areas of domestic policy is now the English government and the Westminster parliament - especially after the referendum vote in Wales a few weeks ago that has led to the emergence of a legislative parliament in Wales - is also an English parliament to all intents and purposes, in many policy fields. And if and when we get a repeat of the election results in 1964 and 1974, which is Labour forming a government overall but without a majority of seats in England, there's going to be a huge problem here.

Sheena McDonald: Are you still sanguine about the Union, Robert?

Robert Hazell: We're talking now about the English Question, and that's a heading for English reactions to devolution. Broadly speaking there are two possible solutions. One is the one propounded by the last Labour government, to divide England 8 or 9 regions and give them all regional assemblies, and I think that policy is dead following the defeat of the North East referendum, but not necessarily forever. Remember, the vote in the north east was four to one against, Richard will remind us that the vote in Wales in 1979 was four to one against devolution for Wales, and within eighteen years that policy was reversed. So I don't think it's inconceivable that in 10-20 years time people might revive talk of regional government in England. But for now the policy solution that might be propounded by the Coalition Government is to set up a commission on the West Lothian Question, which was in the coalition agreement - that's something they haven't yet done but they are discussing how to do that. My guess is it might be quite limited in its terms of reference. I think if I were asked to advise them, I would say: set it up as a parliamentary commission and keep its terms of reference quite narrow; this is essentially a Conservative policy that you're trying to resolve, so have it chaired by a senior backbench Tory, and; get them to advise on the feasibility of testing the EVoEL on just a few bills at Westminster, do some experiments, see how it goes.

Sheena McDonald: The hoary old West Lothian Question...it hasn't ever been answered, is a commission the best idea, Alan?

Alan Trench: A Commission is the least bad approach, it is inherently an unanswerable question...

So Robert Hazell's 'two possible solutions' to the West Lothian Question are regional assemblies and a commission on the West Lothian Question, which he suggests should have 'limited terms of reference' [should not discuss an English parliament] and should be parliamentary commissions [should exclude the public]. My opinion of Robert Hazell is unchanged, he is a prize twat, and a pompuous condescending one at that.

Alan Trench - the expert who 'dissuaded' the Power2010 deliberative panel from adopting the proposal for an English parliament - seriously expects us to believe that he thinks the WLQ is unanswerable? Well, if you dissuade people from the obvious and natural answer then I suppose that it is unanswerable.

Trench went on to say that the Barnett Formula was "overgenerous to Scotland" and "undergenerous to Wales". The problem with reforming the Barnett Formula on a UK-wide basis, said Trench, was that "it would mean a very substantial cut in public spending in Scotland...something in the order of £4.5bn a year or possibly more". An alternative solution, mused Trench, was to reform the Barnett Formula not on a UK-wide basis but to reform it for just the "main loser, which is Wales". In other words, continue to overfund Scotland but overfund Wales too.

Extraordinary stuff from a couple of Welsh Labour MPs (David Hanson and Mark Tami) reported in the Flinshire Chronicle:

BOTH Flintshire MPs have spoken of their concerns at Government plans to only allow English MPs to vote on matters affecting England.

Mr Hanson said: “There is an argument MPs over the border cannot vote on issues affecting Welsh issues, matters voted on by Assembly Members, so they wonder why we can have a say on English laws.

“Many of the people in my constituency go to the Countess of Chester Hospital or to Clatterbridge for their care, which means I could not vote despite being the elected representative.

“You would also have to consider train services from Crewe to Wales, the Vauxhall factory and other transport links. If it isn’t broke they shouldn’t fix it.”

Mr Tami added: “It is crucial Welsh MPs continue to vote on issues that are of significance to our constituents.

“Cross-border services are vital to Flintshire, so we should continue to be able to vote on health issues that impact on the English NHS.

“Likewise, many people living here work in English councils, companies and schools, so it is important we continue to have the ability to represent their concerns in Parliament.”

I might have some sympathy if these two were from a party that opposed devolution to Wales. But they're not, they are members of a Labour Party that argued strongly that decisions affecting the Welsh NHS should be taken in Wales by politicians elected in Wales. So it seems rather hypocritical to now argue that politicians elected in Wales should have a vote on the English NHS.

Letter to Mark Harper MP (Minister for Political and Constitutional Reform).

Dear Mr Harper,

Thank you for your recent letter, dated 11th October 2010 (Ref: NO10306334), which was forwarded to me by my MP, Norman Baker. You go some way to reassuring me that the forthcoming Commission on the West Lothian Question is not an attempt to kick the issue into the long-grass.

However, a Parliamentary solution to the West Lothian Question is impossible in the short-term because the Government has stated that the Barnett Formula is untouchable until "stabilisation of the public finances" has been achieved. Since the Barnett Formula allocates money to the devolved nations as a proportion of what is spent in England, practically every English bill has ramifications for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and every MP from those countries therefore has an obligation to their constituents to have their say on English legislation. Under the circumstances I cannot see how you can do anything other than delay answering the West Lothian Question until such time that you have reformed the discredited Barnett Formula. In order to circumvent the Barnett Formula problem I have little doubt that you will toy with the 'double majority' solution, whereby the vote can only be carried if there is a double majority of both the House as a whole and of MPs representing English constituencies.

It would be foolhardy to even toy with a solution that introduced a nationalist imperative to the Union parliament.

The House splits down party - not national – lines; majorities are party political, not territorial. The Government of the day calls upon all its MPs, irrespective of the territory in which they were elected, in order to conduct its business. To expect English MPs to act as a national bloc – to vote in the national interests of England - would be to undermine the working of Parliament and effective government. For MPs in the UK Parliament, elected on a UK manifesto, the national interest should be the national interest of the United Kingdom. Given the nature of Parliament, which is essentially an electoral college that selects the UK Government, the plurality should properly be expected to put the interests of the UK Government above those of England - that is their job as UK MPs.

I have a number of questions concerning the Commission that I would appreciate an answer to, please.

• Will the Commission be independent; to whom will it be answerable?
• Will the Commission be considering the option of scrapping the Barnett Formula, and the option of establishing an English parliament?
• Who will be the Chair and how will the Committee members be chosen?
• How much will the Commission cost?
• Will it be a closed shop or can an ordinary member of the public, such as myself, get involved?

The recent Calman Commission invited submissions from the public, and like the Kilbrandon Commission it held public consultations. I very much hope that you are planning to follow their example. I put myself at the disposal of the Commission and look forward to being called to give evidence. My credentials are impeccable: I'm English and because I'm not a politician I will put the interests of England and Democracy before the interests of Party and Parliament.

Yours,

A gentle reminder to Conservative MPs about the popularity of one of the measures on which they were elected.

...it has been suggested that when MPs at Westminster consider issues that affect only England, only English MPs (and not Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish MPs) should be allowed to vote on them. Do you support or oppose this idea?

Support: 66%

Oppose: 17%

Don't know: 17%

And a gentle reminder to Liberal Democrat MPs that they were elected on a promise to do something about the Barnett Formula.

Scotland currently receives around 20% more public spending per head of population than England. Do you think Scotland gets ...

More than its fair share of government spending: 59%

Pretty much its fair share, given Scotland's large land area and the costs that arise from this: 24%

Less than its fair share: 3%

Don't know: 13%

The polling data is taken from YouGov for the Sunday Times, three weeks prior to the general election.