Thom Brooks
David Cameron announced support for ‘English votes for English laws’. It is easy to see why. Members of parliament from Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland can vote on issues that affect England alone.
This can lead to situations like tuition fees in England which only passed with support from non-English MPs.
Cameron knows that this policy is popular and commands much support. The rest of the United Kingdom enjoys devolved powers, so perhaps it is time for England as well.
The big question is: if there should be English votes on English laws, what happens next?
Don’t expect to hear calls for a new English parliament or regional assemblies. Such plans have been shelved since the north-east emphatically rejected its assembly at the polls nearly 10 years ago.
Tory MP John Redwood argues no new building is required or extra politicians.
All MPs can and should vote on British matters affecting the United Kingdom in the House of Commons, but only English MPs should vote on laws that effect England-only.
We can devolve powers to England swiftly because the facilities and representatives are already established.
Ed Miliband has been on the receiving end of some heavy criticism lately for not jumping on this evolving bandwagon.
But he is right to be cautious because the long-term consequences must be clarified before changes are made.
How sadly ironic it would be if within days of Scotland’s remaining a firm member of the UK any bungling of devolution of powers to England permanently damaged our political union.
There are serious issues that any devolution for England must address – few of which have attracted any attention thus far.
One problem is that MPs would lack equality: some would enjoy more rights than others.
If only English MPs could vote on English laws, then English MPs would have greater rights to political participation in Westminster than other MPs with more limited voting powers.
A second problem is pay.
If English MPs participated in national and English-only debates, then they would take on added responsibilities not unlike elected members to regional assemblies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Should English MPs be paid more than others because of their unequal powers?
The potential for instability is a third problem.
Markets crave stability and Redwood’s vision for parliament could undermine it.
It is not impossible to imagine an election where the party that wins the most seats becoming the new government may be unable to command a majority on English-only laws.
A vote of no confidence in the government could pass on English-only matters, even if the government is supported by a majority of MPs including non-English MPs.
These issues are only the start of the problems that must be addressed. Should there be a secretary of state for Education in the cabinet if education is devolved to England?
Can a Scottish or Welsh MP serve as a leader of the House of Commons responsible for arranging government business where he or she is unable to have any say on it?
Finally, must any future prime minister be English?
The concern is that any MP from outside England might be seen of less than a full MP and hamstrung because he or she would lack the same rights as other MPs to debate and vote on the same issues in parliament.
‘English votes for English laws’ is a fine slogan.
But we shouldn’t rush to support the first proposal we are offered to make it a reality.
I am all for devolution of powers to England, but it is crucial we get it right to avoid the risk of long-term damage.
Let’s be open-minded about our options, such as devolved power to existing regional hubs that might better address the diverse needs of England’s regions and make devolution work for us.
David Cameron announced support for ‘English votes for English laws’. It is easy to see why. Members of parliament from Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland can vote on issues that affect England alone.
This can lead to situations like tuition fees in England which only passed with support from non-English MPs.
Cameron knows that this policy is popular and commands much support. The rest of the United Kingdom enjoys devolved powers, so perhaps it is time for England as well.
The big question is: if there should be English votes on English laws, what happens next?
Don’t expect to hear calls for a new English parliament or regional assemblies. Such plans have been shelved since the north-east emphatically rejected its assembly at the polls nearly 10 years ago.
Tory MP John Redwood argues no new building is required or extra politicians.
All MPs can and should vote on British matters affecting the United Kingdom in the House of Commons, but only English MPs should vote on laws that effect England-only.
We can devolve powers to England swiftly because the facilities and representatives are already established.
Ed Miliband has been on the receiving end of some heavy criticism lately for not jumping on this evolving bandwagon.
But he is right to be cautious because the long-term consequences must be clarified before changes are made.
How sadly ironic it would be if within days of Scotland’s remaining a firm member of the UK any bungling of devolution of powers to England permanently damaged our political union.
There are serious issues that any devolution for England must address – few of which have attracted any attention thus far.
One problem is that MPs would lack equality: some would enjoy more rights than others.
If only English MPs could vote on English laws, then English MPs would have greater rights to political participation in Westminster than other MPs with more limited voting powers.
A second problem is pay.
If English MPs participated in national and English-only debates, then they would take on added responsibilities not unlike elected members to regional assemblies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Should English MPs be paid more than others because of their unequal powers?
The potential for instability is a third problem.
Markets crave stability and Redwood’s vision for parliament could undermine it.
It is not impossible to imagine an election where the party that wins the most seats becoming the new government may be unable to command a majority on English-only laws.
A vote of no confidence in the government could pass on English-only matters, even if the government is supported by a majority of MPs including non-English MPs.
These issues are only the start of the problems that must be addressed. Should there be a secretary of state for Education in the cabinet if education is devolved to England?
Can a Scottish or Welsh MP serve as a leader of the House of Commons responsible for arranging government business where he or she is unable to have any say on it?
Finally, must any future prime minister be English?
The concern is that any MP from outside England might be seen of less than a full MP and hamstrung because he or she would lack the same rights as other MPs to debate and vote on the same issues in parliament.
‘English votes for English laws’ is a fine slogan.
But we shouldn’t rush to support the first proposal we are offered to make it a reality.
I am all for devolution of powers to England, but it is crucial we get it right to avoid the risk of long-term damage.
Let’s be open-minded about our options, such as devolved power to existing regional hubs that might better address the diverse needs of England’s regions and make devolution work for us.
No comments:
Post a Comment