James Black
Researcher
Campaign for an English Parliament

13 (2.27 pm)

14 Evidence from MR EDDIE BONE AND MS SCILLA CULLEN

15 THE CHAIR: Good afternoon.

16 MR EDDIE BONE: There’s two of us, we are not both Eddie

17 Bone (pointing to the nameplate). Scilla Cullen from the campaign as well.

18 THE CHAIR: You are most welcome. Thank you very much for

19 coming.

20 MR EDDIE BONE: Thank you.

21 THE CHAIR: I have to make some housekeeping advertisements.

22 This is, though you might not think it, a public

23 meeting, and a transcript will be kept and sent to you

24 for correction and when corrected it will be put on the

25 Commission’s website.
327

1 MR EDDIE BONE: Okay.

2 THE CHAIR: Can I then hand over to Professor Jeffery to

3 begin the questioning.

4 MR EDDIE BONE: Yes, sure.

5 PROFESSOR CHARLIE JEFFERY: Thank you very much. Hello.

6 It’s me first because I have to leave shortly so please

7 excuse me when I do. Can I ask a very general thing,

8 I am sure my colleagues will join in a bit more detailed

9 questions. We heard earlier that — from another

10 witness — that an English political community has begun

11 to crystallize, that is a sense of collective belonging

12 and I think a shared of — a sense of shared collective

13 interest among the English. I suspect you broadly agree

14 with that analysis, but it would be helpful to us

15 I think if you could give us a fuller sense of what the

16 components of that community are both in terms of

17 identity and collective interest.

18 MR EDDIE BONE: Okay. I think first of all from our side we

19 will just run through really what the campaign has been

20 up to over the last decade or so. We have toured

21 England extensively, we have done a number of tours,

22 right across all the borderlands so we have a pretty

23 good sense of what’s going on with the public. We have

24 had meetings with the SNP, been into Scotland,

25 discussed the issues, very sobering meetings I might add.
328

1 We have been down to Cornwall, Devon,

2 debating, so we are pretty aware — you know — of what the

3 issues are there.

4 The one thing we would say and very clearly say, is

5 about two years ago we noticed a big upsurge in

6 awareness from the population in England. From

7 campaigning on the street when people did not understand

8 devolution, didn’t want to engage, to people starting to

9 express anger and resentment at what they see as an

10 unfair system. Actually they had lost trust in the UK

11 Westminster government. Now that’s been supported by

12 the IPPR report that’s come out and reinforced that, but

13 we knew years ago that was the case.

14 So for example this weekend alone I was in

15 Birmingham, West Brom, over 24,000 people on the streets

16 celebrating St George’s Day, actually very clear that

17 they are now starting to connect an English identity

18 with a political voice. Our membership is growing

19 rapidly because of that, we now can afford to do things

20 we only dreamt of years ago on that. So it’s very

21 clear that there is a community growing in England

22 that want a political voice.

23 I will give you a run down on some of the issues we

24 have. As I said we spoke to the SNP, very sobering

25 meeting in Edinburgh, lasted 25 minutes. Just before
329

1 Christmas, mince pies still on the table. The meeting

2 really finished with them explaining they considered

3 England to be a separate country in every sense, no

4 different from any other country from around the world,

5 and that they would take devo max as a stepping stone

6 towards independence. It’s interesting since that

7 meeting that all the main parties have given devo max as

8 an offer without any details, so they are already moving

9 in the direction they want.

10 Now when I left there, it was interesting to see

11 that at the same time an English community not wanting

12 a federal system but jumping to independence, and one of

13 the things both of us will actually be very strong on,

14 that people we meet when we are touring do not

15 understand the federal system in England, they go

16 straight for independence. So that community and that

17 identity is separating at quite a rapid rate so yes

18 that’s our answer to that. I would agree with that.

19 PROFESSOR CHARLIE JEFFERY: I came across your campaign

20 a few years ago when I was working on and generally

21 criticising the UK government’s proposals for an elected

22 regional government. Something that emerged from me in

23 that work was the distinctions exist between different

24 parts of England. I think you can call these both in

25 identity terms and in interest terms, and I am going to
330

1 oversimplify, but you can think of a southern part of

2 England, not really including Cornwall, which in

3 identity terms is defined in part in its relationship to

4 Scotland, but very strongly also in its relationship to

5 the EU, and is generally in an wealthier part of the UK.

6 In the north of England, those Scottish and EU elements

7 are also there but as a part of self definition which is

8 in relation to the south, and in relation to perceptions

9 of economic disadvantage, vis-a-vis the south and

10 vis-a-vis the products of the current UK political

11 system.

12 How does Englishness as identity and interest

13 encapsulate those quite significant differences?

14 MS SCILLA CULLEN: I think you would find if you asked

15 anybody within those separate communities whether they

16 identified themselves as, say, a Yorkshireman but not

17 English they would definitely disagree. England has

18 been an united country for over a thousand years and

19 like all countries, like Scotland and Wales, there are

20 different regions with different levels of prosperity

21 and people who identify — will always identify with

22 their particular area. We all identify ourselves first

23 with our families and then with our relations and then

24 with where we choose to live. So I think that that is

25 not a very profound vision. Regions of course in this
331

1 country are a 20th century artifact, they have no basis

2 in our cultural history. If you ask people to identify

3 with the region they are much more likely to say they

4 come from Sussex or a Kentishman, they would not say

5 “I am thoroughly involved with the East Midland region”,

6 it just does not happen.

7 MR EDDIE BONE: To –

8 PROFESSOR CHARLIE JEFFERY: As an East Midlander, I can

9 identify with that point, yes.

10 MR EDDIE BONE: To take that one step further, as a campaign

11 group we have been to Wales and Scotland, and you have

12 the Lowlands, the Highlands of Scotland, the Islands,

13 and that was not really a question posed to Scotland.

14 It was all about determination as a country with

15 a history, an ancient history, and if you go to Wales

16 and again I have stood in Wales, both north and south,

17 debating the issue. There are very clear differences.

18 I do not think I need to go into that. Having stood in

19 Cornwall, on the borderlands this is where my real

20 concern comes in. By fragmenting a country out too

21 much. If you sit in Cornwall, debating on the

22 borderlands with Devon, and you realize there’s a strong

23 sense of Englishness, strong sense right across. If you

24 go into Kent, there are small groups talking about Kent

25 being — determining its own self. If you are not
332

1 careful people instantly go to their counties and

2 identify with the counties they come from in England so

3 when you start the process, it’s where do you stop?

4 What you have to do is hold England together, and

5 there is a real sense as Scilla was saying, family,

6 community, county, country. Really from an English

7 viewpoint to actually ask that question at all, with

8 politeness, it’s very easily refuted on the streets.

9 PROFESSOR CHARLIE JEFFERY: I’m going to leave my colleagues

10 to think about the institutional reflections of some of

11 these issues, apologies again for leaving early.

12 MR EDDIE BONE: I will let you off.

13 (Professor Charlie Jeffery leaves)

14 SIR GEOFFREY BOWMAN: Mr Bone, you say the EVEL, English

15 Votes for English Laws, would be merely procedural

16 consequential without the force of legislation,

17 paragraph 1 of your — under the heading “EVEL cannot

18 work” for whatever reasons. Why could it not be

19 legislation. Could you not have an act of parliament?

20 This would be — let me postulate this would be the very

21 strongest form of EVEL, you would have an act of

22 parliament which would provide that an English-only bill

23 could be voted on in the House of Commons only by

24 English members, at no point would anybody else be

25 involved. Could you not have that?
333

1 MS SCILLA CULLEN: It has never been suggested that English

2 votes for English measures or laws would be anything

3 other than a convention. We have not addressed that

4 issue because it has not been produced as legislation.

5 If it was produced as legislation, it would, and I think

6 picking some of that up from your previous — the Lords

7 themselves — you would need to have legislative power

8 and an executive, otherwise it would simply be a talking

9 shop, whether it had the force of legislation — legal

10 powers or not.

11 SIR GEOFFREY BOWMAN: You would create two classes of MPs to

12 say the least, which is another of your objectives.

13 MS SCILLA CULLEN: We have already two categories of MPs,

14 those accountable and those unaccountable to English

15 legislation, and this is of course is — the principle

16 of democracy is that all your representatives are

17 accountable to you. You well know that in the last

18 government there were three occasions where laws were

19 passed in defiance of English MPs’ wishes, the hunting

20 ban — it does not matter if you agree with the law or

21 not it’s the democratic principles at stake, the hunting

22 ban was forced through by Michael Martin, the initial

23 top-up fees was forced through by a number of Scottish

24 MPs, and the foundation hospitals was whipped through,

25 again on the backs of Scottish Labour MPs.
334

1 So these MPs that from Scotland and — it will

2 happen in Wales as well — that were voting on

3 English-only legislation, not accountable to anybody in

4 England. That is where we already have two classes of

5 MPs in Westminster.

6 MR EDDIE BONE: And to go on, I think it’s very interesting

7 what Scilla is saying. To take one point out of a list

8 of six you have to look at it collectively. To go

9 through each one and take them in isolation is probably,

10 in all due respect from our view, would be a flawed

11 approach because actually collectively all the issues

12 together make sure that English votes on English laws

13 just would not work. But you have to also remember the

14 principle of parliament and that’s engagement and

15 I think that was covered very well earlier. From the

16 public. The public do not understand the process. The

17 public actually want simple answers to it. Actually

18 they instantly go to straightforward parliament for

19 England and so we are indulging ourselves on

20 a process that actually fails to realise that the wider

21 community, the people of England, want a simple answer

22 to this issue.

23 SIR GEOFFREY BOWMAN: I do not think we are going to be able

24 to give you an answer that’s outside our terms of

25 reference.
335

1 MR EDDIE BONE: I am fully aware of that but I can only

2 implore you as an Englishman.

3 SIR GEOFFREY BOWMAN: How do you know I’m an Englishman?

4 MR EDDIE BONE: That’s the point.

5 SIR GEOFFREY BOWMAN: I’m a Lancashire man! Going back to

6 this issue as to the mechanics, we have had suggestions

7 in the last couple of days it might be done through the

8 standing orders of the House of Commons, it might be

9 done through legislation or convention. But at the risk

10 of incurring your wrath by going to one or other of

11 those, let me ask you to consider this case which is one

12 we have been considering quite a lot in the last couple

13 of days. You have a machinery within the House of

14 Commons for determining what the English opinion is

15 within the House on a particular bill and that having

16 been established, the final say lies with the House of

17 Commons as a whole. So that for example — this is

18 another case that’s been put to us — you have

19 a government formed by Labour because it’s the majority

20 in the House of Commons, it has not got a majority

21 within England, within English MPs, but you do have

22 a machinery for determining what the English opinion is,

23 and it might be in favour or it might be against, but

24 then the final say is up to the House of Commons as

25 a whole which would be whipped by the government. That
336

1 does not create two classes of MP, does it, because in

2 the end, it’s the parliament as a whole that has a final

3 say. All you have done is determined English opinion

4 and then it’s up to parliament to take possibly

5 a supreme step of overriding that.

6 MS SCILLA CULLEN: That is right but that would include

7 unaccountable MPs, MPs unaccountable for laws passed for

8 England because it does not affect their constituency.

9 There is a sort of wider issue as well. For instance,

10 if that came to pass, what you suggest, it would not

11 prevent ministers being appointed for English

12 departments, and we are talking what are the devolved

13 departments to the rest of the UK, that is health,

14 education, welfare, transport, policing among others.

15 Being in charge of those departments where there own and

16 making policy and indeed a Prime Minister making policy,

17 which is not going to affect his constituents.

18 We had John Reid as head of the health service and

19 Alistair Darling in charge of transport. What they

20 decide, their policies for transport and health in

21 England was never going to affect their constituents.

22 The English electorate had no way of removing them as

23 MPs if they disagreed with their policies.

24 SIR GEOFFREY BOWMAN: Again I am not sure it’s within our

25 terms of reference, it’s a point often made but I am not
337

1 sure we are able to –

2 MS SCILLA CULLEN: In fact many people do not understand

3 this, for instance we are actually in England, we have

4 had laws passed on us by the Scottish Executive.

5 There’s the River Till regulation order which is

6 entirely in England yet the Scottish executive controls

7 the fishing on that river. People who support the

8 status quo say that’s all right because the River Esk is

9 entirely in Scotland and the Westminster parliament

10 controls fishing in the river Esk, but the difference is

11 the Scots have representatives at Westminster, we do not

12 have representatives in the Scottish Parliament.

13 SIR GEOFFREY BOWMAN: Thank you.

14 SIR STEPHEN LAWS: You are in favour of an English

15 parliament as part of a federal United Kingdom so there

16 would be an UK parliament as you explain in your paper,

17 that would have limited functions.

18 MR EDDIE BONE: Yes, we are. But actually we are in favour

19 of a parliament for England under any circumstances so

20 if actually it came to — for a federal system to work

21 all the component parts have to be in agreement for that

22 to work. If Scotland and Wales — which actually you

23 are seeing more and more expressed and being talked

24 about in Wales, about the concern of a British

25 government after Scotland breaks away, if that does
338

1 occur they are in a situation where they

2 do not believe they would have enough voice. So

3 actually you are assuming that the component

4 parts of the UK want that to work. With acknowledgment

5 if they do which is a small window of opportunity we

6 would embrace it, but if the next stage is an

7 independent England we would go there.

8 SIR STEPHEN LAWS: Given a choice between a working federal

9 system and an independent working England, which are you

10 in favour of? It leads onto my next question.

11 MR EDDIE BONE: We are in favour that the people of England

12 are given a referendum to decide themselves. The people

13 of Scotland and Wales have been given referendums to

14 decide and determine where they go so actually the

15 people of England should be given that choice as well.

16 SIR STEPHEN LAWS: Do you know what side of the argument you

17 would be on when this referendum –

18 MS SCILLA CULLEN: Our fundamental policy is that we should

19 have the same advantages as the Scots do, in other words

20 if they have a devolved semi-autonomous parliament

21 within the United Kingdom, that’s what we should have.

22 If they have independence, then clearly that’s we would

23 suggest. I think that for stability, as Eddie said, for

24 stability I think a federal solution is the only stable

25 solution to retain a United Kingdom. And in fact we
339

1 would say the reserved matters would be the British

2 government of course, which the House of Commons or

3 whoever was taking the British government role would not

4 need to be — just because it is now, because the

5 reserved matters are restricted. You could also say the

6 rest of the United Kingdom is rather underrepresented in

7 the House of Commons now on reserve matters. For

8 instance, if you take something like going to war in

9 Iraq, many members of people in Scotland and Wales

10 didn’t want to go to war in Iraq but didn’t have the

11 number of MPs in the Commons that would have made any

12 difference to that view.

13 SIR STEPHEN LAWS: What I am working up to is to ask you if

14 whether within a federal system you see a role either

15 for the UK government or for the UK legislature of

16 exercising or supervising some form of coordination

17 between the way the different parts of the kingdom work

18 and how you would see that working as between England

19 and the component parts.

20 MS SCILLA CULLEN: With reform of the House of Lords we

21 would see that the House of Lords would be taking on

22 some of this role and that was kind of alluded to

23 earlier. At present, the function of the House of Lords

24 is only to review and revise English domestic

25 legislation. It does not review and revise Scottish
340

1 Welsh and Northern Irish domestic legislation and we

2 think that — my personal view is that it’s better to

3 have a bicameral system than an unicameral system. The

4 British establishment produced federal solutions for

5 Australia and Canada which worked very well, surely we

6 can do it for ourselves.

7 MR EDDIE BONE: I think we are aware when you come back down

8 to touring, talking on the streets to the public,

9 that actually when it comes — there is a movement that

10 I came across about two weeks ago, calling for

11 independent England, talking about how it was North Sea

12 oil, NOT Scottish oil or Scotland producing this, and

13 there’s huge issues if there is to be separation amongst

14 the nations. We would acknowledge that. I mean when it

15 comes down to who takes the debt. You know, I think one

16 of the earlier points made was the fact people do not

17 necessarily engage with the political process but they

18 are engaging with the political issues and they are

19 fully aware that at this present time prescription

20 charges,

21 the tuition fees, we are having students engaging with

22 us for the first time, really coming on board trying to

23 look at the answers. So from that side, yes,

24 a federal system probably my personal view is to fall in

25 line, because I can see a lot of problems if it goes for
341

1 independence amongst the nations.

2 300 years of stability is something to hold onto.

3 Let’s not be under false illusions, we are looking at

4 potentially the UK ceasing to exist. I think let’s not

5 kid ourselves. On the street, people are already moving

6 that way. So sitting here unfortunately the remit

7 that’s been given here does not really tackle the real

8 issue, it just — it just touches on the surface, and

9 that’s meant with absolute respect when I say that.

10 SIR GEOFFREY BOWMAN: Thank you, we concede, it doesn’t half

11 tie our hands.

12 MR EDDIE BONE: Yes it does.

13 MS SCILLA CULLEN: One of the issues that we have which you

14 might just be able to address or think about, is — it

15 was brought to light with Scottish — the SNP really –

16 wanting independence. Independence from the United

17 Kingdom. Well there will not be a United Kingdom

18 because of course the kingdoms that were united were the

19 kingdoms of Scotland and England, but if there is

20 a divorce, talking about North Sea oil in particular,

21 who is going to negotiate on behalf of England to make

22 sure that we do not get, in the vernacular, stiffed?

23 SIR GEOFFREY BOWMAN: If you are asking me the question,

24 I do not think I can answer it. We are supposed to be

25 asking you questions.
342

1 MS SCILLA CULLEN: That’s it –

2 SIR GEOFFREY BOWMAN: It’s a rhetorical question and it will

3 be recorded.

4 SIR EMYR JONES PARRY: The answer is the British government.

5 MS SCILLA CULLEN: I am not sure “stiff” should be in

6 there!

7 MR EDDIE BONE: That’s an interesting point because one of

8 the things you asked earlier about identity, you

9 instantly say the British government will speak on

10 behalf of the people of England and that actually is

11 a flawed response because even all the reports we come

12 across is the British identity is splitting from the

13 English identity. Without any shadow of doubt. The

14 British identity is in my mind in decline because

15 actually the growth of Scottish identity and Welsh

16 identity has made it pretty sure the English identity

17 needs to re-emerge and it is. So when someone says

18 a British identity or the British will speak on behalf

19 of the English, really that’s a flaw in a democratic

20 process. Actually the people of England will not stand

21 for that much longer.

22 MS SCILLA CULLEN: If you actually look at it in detail, if

23 we take the British-Irish Council for instance, we are

24 told this, UK departments will speak for England, well

25 the representatives we have there now is the Secretary
343

1 of State for Northern Ireland and the Deputy Prime

2 Minister. Now, it would take a great leap of the

3 imagination to believe that they are going to represent

4 England’s interests over their primary roles.

5 MR EDDIE BONE: We also have the SNP who represent England

6 in Europe on Fisheries. Let’s be sure on that one, they

7 would not have English interests at heart. Actually,

8 this is an awareness that they haven’t, and I talked

9 to them on that first hand, I explained that earlier, we had

10 meetings with the SNP, they had made it very clear where

11 they stand in relation to England.

12 PROFESSOR YVONNE GALLIGAN: Can I come in, Chairman, please?

13 One of the things that I want to consider with you in

14 terms of our remit and that we’ve been grappling

15 a little bit with is that what often — not often but

16 sometimes issues that affect England, that appear to

17 affect England only, have consequences for other parts.

18 In the context of an English parliament and from what

19 I am hearing an English executive as well.

20 MS SCILLA CULLEN: Indeed, yes.

21 MR EDDIE BONE: Yes.

22 PROFESSOR YVONNE GALLIGAN: This clearly has major financial

23 and resource implications for other parts, leaving

24 Scotland out of it, I am aware I’m Northern Ireland and

25 for the moment I will wear a proxy Wales hat at this
344

1 point. So, I know that in terms of Northern Ireland it

2 benefits from the allocation of resources in terms of

3 the block grant in a way that it could not sustain

4 itself as viable political entity without that transfer

5 of funds.

6 Now, even though one might say well you know that’s

7 up to Northern Ireland to raise its own taxes, in actual

8 fact the population isn’t large enough to be able to do

9 that for itself or wealthy enough to be able to so it

10 will always be requiring a fund transfer of some kind.

11 If we have an English parliament and if we have an

12 English executive, then obviously there would be very,

13 very strong political pressures to keep the maximum

14 resources possible within England.

15 MS SCILLA CULLEN: I would disagree with that on

16 a philosophical thing. For instance the UK parliament,

17 the retained federal UK parliament, would clearly be

18 taking the taxes and would disperse the taxes as

19 appropriate. But the issue I think that is in question

20 is transparency. I did come here trying — saying to

21 myself I will not say the word Barnett but the formula

22 is not based on need, it has never been based on need,

23 and if it was clearly based on need, I am quite sure

24 that the people of England would have no qualms

25 whatsoever in seeing that certain monies went to certain
345

1 areas because of need.

2 But at the moment it’s not based on need and it

3 appears to the people of England that — and we have

4 mentioned prescription charges, top up fees; if these

5 can be free in Wales and Scotland or heavily subsidised

6 in the case of top up fees, it gives the appearance to

7 people in England that the rest of the UK is overfunded.

8 Now, this may well be a wrong assumption, but this is

9 what I am saying, we need the transparency which says

10 you are not underfunded. But the other issue that we

11 have, which is against the British government, is that

12 permanently, persistently, in those services, education

13 transport, health and welfare, which are most close to

14 your ordinary citizens’ heart, England is permanently

15 underfunded per head, it’s permanently 98 per cent of

16 the UK average. There’s no transparency to this,

17 there’s no explanation for this.

18 MR EDDIE BONE: I think one of the things we have to be

19 aware of is I think all of us here would be, I think the

20 status quo is not sustainable, the present system is

21 going to break. In doing so, if it’s not controlled,

22 there is not strong leadership to take it somewhere,

23 none of us really know where it’s going to go. One of

24 the things I will bring up is Boris Johnson I think only

25 last week talked about London wanting its taxes being
346

1 spent in London, the reaction from Wales was very clear

2 from that. If we are not careful we will see exactly

3 what you are saying where the funding where it’s needed

4 will be broken up because we will have England broken

5 into regional areas where they will start fighting

6 amongst themselves.

7 I will give you a good example, I was at a meeting

8 with a number of Northern Irish people there, and it was

9 an emotive meeting and if we take it out of the finance

10 side, it was a concern. Martin McGuinness only a few

11 months ago was talking about having a referendum for

12 Ireland. You mention that within that meeting, it was

13 an interesting response. The devolved assemblies and

14 parliaments are here to stay. What we need to do is

15 make sure the English question, the English are

16 represented fairly and I do not think the funding

17 then — the funding probably will fall into place under

18 a fair system.

19 PROFESSOR YVONNE GALLIGAN: In terms of our terms of

20 reference then, what are your — what do you think is

21 feasible and achievable?

22 MS SCILLA CULLEN: Well I am not a constitutional expert.

23 I have never had to look at or draft legislation but

24 I have been involved in drafting regulations. I think

25 at the very least regulations that concern England, and
347

1 I am thinking particularly of the workplace parking

2 levy, England regulations, should have certainly more

3 scrutiny from the House of Commons. My understanding of

4 regulations is that they are laid before the House for

5 two days and then if nobody raises any issues, then they

6 are just passed through on the nod.

7 THE CHAIR: — on the nod, but the principle is the same you

8 say.

9 MS SCILLA CULLEN: I think it’s very important because UK

10 legislation, I think that was the Transport Act or a

11 similar act, these regulations were only applied to

12 England and in the last government we had things like

13 bin taxes and road levies as well.

14 Now, this means that England is being more highly

15 taxed. So that perhaps we could at the very least

16 introduce something which means if the regulations apply

17 to England they have to be looked at.

18 The other issue that I thought about and put to you,

19 which you may be able to put forward, is that there

20 should be a representative for England, for instance in

21 the Treasury, because where Treasury decisions are made

22 we have the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

23 Wales and Scotland together with ministers from the

24 devolved administrations in discussion and advising the

25 Treasury. We do not have anybody that has the specific
348

1 remit and responsibility to speak for England, which

2 might have contributed to some of the things I was

3 saying earlier. I mean, I looked — I did look at your

4 remit quite carefully and I thought, well, you haven’t

5 got much leeway.

6 MR EDDIE BONE: I do not envy the remit you have been given

7 because our view as a campaign that actually the only

8 solution is a parliament for England so actually

9 everything you suggest will fail.

10 SIR GEOFFREY BOWMAN: We are an irrelevance, respectfully,

11 you think we are an irrelevance.

12 MR EDDIE BONE: I would say, respectfully, but by not

13 tackling the issue we have been saying for years, the

14 real issue here, the elephant in the room, we are doomed

15 to failure and as an Englishman who’s been a nurse for

16 20 years and caring for my community, I see a rocky road

17 ahead of us if we do not tackle this issue properly.

18 And I hope that and implore you as an Englishman that

19 you have the courage to say that your remit was too

20 narrow and actually the real issue has not been tackled.

21 MS SCILLA CULLEN: The other thing, as I say I have not

22 been involved drafting legislation, but that your

23 remit — I wrote this at the beginning here, and I hope

24 you will not take this the wrong way — so it’s

25 specifically says to consider how the House of Commons
349

1 might deal with legislation which affects only part of

2 the United Kingdom — presumably meaning England — but

3 that was looked at presumably before devolution, in

4 other words how you could split off Scottish

5 legislation, which is probably easier, but Welsh

6 legislation must be quite difficult to split off so the

7 Welsh Assembly can pass their own acts because Wales and

8 England have been — were united by the Tudors. So it

9 seems to me that this is part of the same process.

10 SIR EMYR JONES PARRY: An awful lot of things I would like

11 to respond to. Let me start with Barnett very quickly.

12 I welcome Barnett being allocated on need because Wales

13 will get more. It is not surprising that England gets

14 98 per cent of the average because England is more

15 affluent than the rest of the United Kingdom per capita,

16 that’s the way it works. Scottish ministers have been

17 to my knowledge in fisheries meetings for the last

18 30 years, that’s because the Scottish fishery industry

19 predominates the fishing industry of the United Kingdom,

20 but all positions in Brussels are the subject of

21 discussions between departments in London and it’s

22 a British position and the British position has to

23 reflect the wishes of all four nations.

24 What I am struck by is your lack of self confidence

25 in England. You see, until 1964, there was no Secretary
350

1 of State for Wales, there was no Welsh office. The

2 complaint that the Welsh have had for, I guess,

3 centuries, is that it’s all been done by the English.

4 The Westminster parliament is synonymous with the

5 English parliament. You have 85 per cent of the

6 population, you have a thumping percentage of the seats

7 in Westminster and actually the problem that the Celtic

8 nations perceive is that they are at the periphery, they

9 suffer economically, and politically they do not have

10 much weight. So all the stuff you were saying about you

11 would like to have more members from England actually

12 sitting when those decisions are taken — the problem

13 for the rest of us is it was ever thus, that we never

14 had a seat and now we have some sort of seat but wholly

15 inadequate compared with the preponderance of England.

16 That’s quite right because it’s a give and take of the

17 United Kingdom. The way it operates. What’s different?

18 Let me give you one example. You set out this initially

19 quite attractive proposition that members should only

20 vote for something which had consequences for their own

21 constituencies. 1959 we were told yesterday, a Welsh

22 valley is flooded, that most of — I thought it was all

23 of — the Welsh MPs voted against, the decision is

24 taken, the valley is flooded. Well that’s how it goes.

25 That’s part of the whole give and take of the United
351

1 Kingdom. At no stage are the merits of the United

2 Kingdom coming out and you are selling a policy which

3 does not seem to have much support out there, because

4 most of the people of England seem to believe that

5 actually Westminster does represent them and they are

6 fairly content, that seems reflected in most of the

7 polling I see.

8 MR EDDIE BONE: First of all I will clarify one point. Very

9 much you talk from a Welsh viewpoint.

10 SIR EMYR JONES PARRY: I talk from somebody representing the

11 United Kingdom for some years.

12 MR EDDIE BONE: You are talking from a Welsh viewpoint and

13 as an Englishman sitting here, if you actually

14 represented me as a British person then I would be very

15 concerned because you put an argument forward very well

16 for the Welsh. And that view, with all respect, will

17 lead to independence between the nations and the break

18 up of the United Kingdom. Because actually those are

19 the very views, when you hit the border lands, that

20 from one street to the other changes. When you

21 live that and you see that and you walk those streets

22 and those debates. Actually under the Holtham Report

23 it’s 6.3 billion that the people of England give Wales.

24 If the Welsh want to compare themselves to the Scottish,

25 then they can, because they probably would be
352

1 underfunded when they look at the Scottish — the amount

2 of funding they get under the Barnett formula. Having

3 spoken myself to Lord Barnett, he apologises for the

4 fact it was done very quickly, but the formula has been

5 kept there. We smile at that but what a shocking

6 situation.

7 SIR EMYR JONES PARRY: It was.

8 MR EDDIE BONE: That is not sustainable.

9 The support in England, 26 opinion polls,

10 independent opinion polls, put the support for an

11 English parliament at 67 per cent. That’s independent.

12 There is widespread support for an English parliament.

13 The people of England have full confidence in having

14 a parliament for themselves, and most would readily go

15 for that. I would be very clear when I say — and again

16 I say it with all respect, when you say that as an

17 Englishman I do not have confidence — I do not have

18 confidence in a British government speaking on behalf of

19 English concerns. I do not even have a first minister

20 to go to to express my concerns. Who would I go to? Do

21 I go to a Prime Minister, David Cameron, who turns round

22 and says he has Scottish blood running through his

23 veins, when the first act he does is go to Scotland

24 and actually offer more money. As an Englishman, do

25 I trust that? Where do I go, I ask you?
353

1 SIR EMYR JONES PARRY: What concern would you want to put to

2 him quite specifically?

3 MR EDDIE BONE: We come back to the fact of how can we have

4 a situation where we have unaccountable MPs pushing

5 through laws onto England by the Scottish, Welsh and

6 Northern Irish MPs. All we want is democratic equality

7 and fairness for the people of England, that’s all

8 that’s wanted, and fairness when it comes down to

9 funding, because I fully understand the point you made

10 earlier.

11 MS SCILLA CULLEN: I can understand what you were saying.

12 From the point of view of Wales, before devolution, now

13 we have devolution we are in a different ball park

14 basically. We have to move on from here. If it is

15 right for Wales to have a Welsh Assembly with more

16 powers, then it is right for England as a nation to be

17 treated the same. We look for a United Kingdom where

18 all nations are in equivalence to each other and to the

19 central UK government and that all systems have equal

20 representation and equal rights and privileges.

21 As was in the 1707 Act of Union.

22 And in that Act also it said there should be one

23 parliament to represent the UK. You referred to the

24 Scottish Fisheries MP, he was not a MP from Westminster,

25 not a Scottish MP from Westminster that was in question, it
354

1 was an SNP MSP from a government that does not represent

2 us, the SNP does not represent us, and you know

3 I queried this with my MP and he expressed concern. At

4 the issue that — what came back was what you stated of

5 course, I think it was to do with mackerel and there is

6 not a mackerel fishery in England. But I wasn’t to know

7 that.

8 SIR EMYR JONES PARRY: But it is important to know the

9 preparation for what that minister would say was

10 actually done by the United Kingdom representation in

11 Brussels on the basis of interdepartmentally agreed

12 positions, involving the four nations and the home

13 departments in London and that minister is not free to

14 espouse whatever he or she wished, she had to reflect

15 that actual position.

16 MS SCILLA CULLEN: I think it comes down to transparency.

17 I understand what you are saying, and I understood it

18 when it was explained to me originally. But if you talk

19 to the man in the street, or the man in the street gets

20 to know about it or the man on the Clapham omnibus as

21 I like to refer to him, they are not going to realise

22 that, because it’s not transparent.

23 SIR EMYR JONES PARRY: Having an English parliament would

24 not change that perception or concern at all. You would

25 still have the same arrangement for working out who
355

1 spoke in Brussels.

2 MS SCILLA CULLEN: Yes, but then that would be between an

3 English parliament, a UK parliament, Wales and Scotland,

4 to choose so there would be an English dimension. To

5 say that because 85 per cent of the UK is English or MPs

6 from English constituencies, many of them do not

7 identify with England, and quite clearly state, some of

8 them are positively antagonistic. Their remit is not to

9 represent England. Their remit is to represent great

10 Britain and/or their respective unionist parties.

11 MR EDDIE BONE: I think for Alex Salmond to come down to

12 Liverpool and actually engage in internal affairs of

13 England in supporting regionalisation of the north is

14 actually extremely rude. It probably will not be

15 tolerated much longer by the English because actually

16 when you read the responses and the groups that were

17 offended by that. It might be that you could argue he

18 did that deliberately for that reason for an end result.

19 But actually these are issues now clearly defined with

20 the English, and the biggest thing that’s really

21 happened, because devolution — we are all older,

22 sitting around here but when — devolution has been

23 around for so long, Scotland and Wales have grown, you

24 talk to the younger people who are now going to be

25 experiencing tuition fees, they identify themselves
356

1 clearly as English. Because actually they have grown up

2 with clear identities in the United Kingdom. So I think

3 actually when you say there about having the trust of

4 the British government, talking on our behalf, I can

5 only say that is not what we see at all when we are

6 travelling and touring the country.

7 It is such a shame that the remit does not really

8 tackle the issue. I can assure you having pointed that

9 out to Nick Clegg some time ago when we thought this

10 commission was going to be kicked into long grass we

11 were fully aware it was going to be such a narrow remit

12 that the issue was not going to be tackled and dealt

13 with properly.

14 I think one of the things we are so respectful for

15 the fact we are here being able to say that to you and

16 means we are moving forward to try and look at

17 a solution to what is going to happen in 2014. We have

18 a very tight timetable now, haven’t we?

19 SIR EMYR JONES PARRY: Thank you very much.

20 THE CHAIR: Thank you very much indeed. I am very grateful

21 to you for coming along and giving us the benefit of

22 your thoughts, thank you.

23 MR EDDIE BONE: Thanks for listening to an Englishman.

24 (3.14 pm)

25 (The witness evidence in London concluded)
357

Our activities have been covered by Conservative supporting newspapers and a number of journalists now respond to our press releases. We have met the SNP and been able to question many journalists and policy makers in Scotland and Wales. We have had our views published in Wales and regularly receive encouraging responses to our articles. We have given evidence to the Mckay commission and send regular e-mails to both Peers and MPs.

We have only been able to accomplish this because we do not have any political views that align us to any one political party. We urge all the political parties to take up our campaign aims when we ask for equality and fairness for the people of England. They need an English Parliament.

Eddie Bone
Chairman
Campaign for an English Parliament

Members:

The commission will be chaired by Sir William McKay former House of Commons clerk.

The five other members of the panel are:

Sir Stephen Laws , senior parliamentary lawyer
Sir Geoffrey Bowman , former House of Commons clerk,
Professor Charlie Jeffery, head of social and political science at Edinburgh University,
Professor Yvonne Galligan, a leading researcher in gender politics from Queen’s University Belfast.
Sir Emyr Jones Parry who chaired a review of the governance of Wales and is the UK’s former ambassador to the UN.

Interests:

Sir William McKay, has served on a large number of bodies that consider complex legal and constitutional matters, including the Legal Questions Committee of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland and as an observer on the Law Society of Scotland’s ruling Council. He was Clerk to the House of Commons in 1998 where he was the principal adviser to the Speaker on the House’s privileges and procedures. Other responsibilities related to the conduct of the
business of the House and its committees.

Sir Geoffrey Bowman KCB QC was called to the bar in 1968 by Lincoln’s Inn, of which he is now a bencher. From 1971 to 2006 he was a member of the Parliamentary Counsel Office, which is responsible for drafting government Bills and facilitating their passage through the Westminster Parliament. He was First Parliamentary Counsel (head of the Office) from 2002 to 2006. He has considerable experience of legislative drafting, Parliamentary procedure and constitutional matters generally.

Sir Emyr Jones Parry GCMG is the President of Aberystwyth University. He is the former British Permanent Representative to the United Nations and former UK permanent representative on the North Atlantic Council (NATO). From 2007-2009 he chaired the All Wales Convention – which led to the referendum on transferring more law-making power from Westminster to Cardiff last year .

Professor Charlie Jeffery has held a Chair in Politics at the University of Edinburgh since October 2004 and is currently Head of School of Social and Political Science and Vice Principal for Public Policy at the University. He directed the Economic and Social Research Council’s research programme on Devolution and Constitutional Change from 2000-7. He was a member of Council of the Economic and Social Research Council from 2005-11. He has been advisor to the House of Commons Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the EU Committee of the Regions, the Commission on Scottish Devolution and the Scotland Bill Committee of the Scottish Parliament. He is a member of the Politics and International Studies sub-panel for the 2014 Research Excellence Framework and chairs the Political Studies Association of the UK.

Professor Yvonne Galligan is the Director of Research on Governance and Public Policy at Queen’s University, Belfast. She is also the Director of the University’s Gender Initiative and of the Centre for the Advancement of Women in Politics. She has written extensively on questions of political and parliamentary representation.

Sir Stephen Laws KCB QC was called to the Bar in 1973. He joined the Civil Service in 1975 and transferred to the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel in 1976. Sir Stephen was First Parliamentary Counsel from 2006 to 2012. Sir Stephen’s career in the Civil Service has involved being an adviser to different Governments on Parliamentary and constitutional matters, as well as responsibility for the drafting and procedural handling of Government Bills at Westminster.

Laws and Bowman were both responsible for drafting parliamentary bills

Remit:

“To consider how the House of Commons might deal with legislation which affects only part of the United Kingdom, following the devolution of certain legislative powers to the Scottish Parliament,
the Northern Ireland Assembly and the National Assembly for Wales.”

The submission took place in a room in the Cabinet Office in Tufton Street that had clearly been used for another event judging by the display boards at the back of the room. The 5 person commission were present together with two recorders and three others. It was rather less grand than the other Commissions on devolution!

We were able to listen to part of the discussions between Lord March and Lord Tyler who were there before us. The essence of their case was that it was all too difficult as it wouldneed political recognition of England. However they seemed to be in favour of some variety of the Clarke fudge.

First of all Sir Stephen Laws apologised for the fact that he was about to leave! So we were down to 4 Commissioners. As I remember it Laws asked us what our opinion was about having legislation for EVoEM. We stated that it would not alter the fundamental flaws in this approach.

They gave us plenty of time to make our case for an EP and McKay visibly blanched at some of the claims we were making. He asked most of the questions including whether we were in favour of independence for England. We stated that our fundamental policy was equality with Scotland and that if Scotland were to secede from the union there would no longer be a united kingdom. Moreover if they wanted stability then they would need to find a solution in which all nations of the UK were in equality with each other. I did state that in negotiations for any independence we would not be represented as a country but feared being, in the vernacular, ‘stiffed’ by the UK Government.

I stated that England was permanently underfunded and Jones said that was because England was the wealthiest part! We pointed out that this was because of the nature of the funding which was not based on need, whereupon Jones stated that if it were based on need Wales would be better funded. They were concerned that an EP would keep all the funds and we pointed out that the UK government would still be responsible for reserved matters such as taxation but that England was not represented when treasury decisions were made. We explained that whatever the rights and wrongs of funding the public in England see that Wales and Scotland can afford free prescriptions and University fees. Eddie stated that in his experience more and more people in England are seeing this discrepancy especially in the border localities.

Galligan appeared to be most interested in how funding for Northern Ireland would be affected if there was an EP.

Finally Jones who was clearly irritated by us said we should have more confidence. I think this was in relation to our representation by the UK government and/or UK Departments. They were very irritated by our reference to being represented in the EU by an SNP MSP saying emphatically that this person would be briefed by the UK and would not straybeyond his brief. I also pointed out that in the British/Irish council England was, apparently, represented by the Secretary of State for NI and the Deputy PM. We thought that it took a good stretch of the imagination to believe that they would put England’s interests ahead of their primary roles.

Although Eddie made the point that England was not Britain they seemed to be unable to grasp that English and British interests were not the same and we got the old mantra of 85% to which I replied that many MPs for English constituencies did not identify with England, it was not their remit and they followed unionist policies.

In conclusion we gave them a lot to think about, whether any of it will sink in is hard to tell but we parted by agreeing that their remit had been made deliberately tight.

Scilla Cullen

April 2012

Whilst this constitutional review is very sorely needed, one rather significant issue does become apparent when you study the press coverage. The fact that there was barely any coverage at all suggests that the Government may try to keep the entire event as under the media radar as possible. If that is indeed the case then the people of England should be worried. As a nation we should be demanding an open and fair debate on the future of the union, and what lies ahead for England itself. In politics secrecy most often means that the powers that be don’t want you to know what they’re doing. If the constitution review continues under the same cloak and dagger secrecy it has begun, we can assume its findings will not be favourable for the English part of the UK.
Chairman of the Campaign for an English parliament, Eddie Bone said yesterday “the public in England need to demand that this review is handled openly, fairly and with total equality. The low key nature of its handling is worrying and inappropriate. If we had an English Parliament we would at least have some assurances that somebody was speaking up for the people of England. As things stand we are in danger of being the UK’s lowest priority despite being its largest part.

James Black
Researcher
Campaign for an English Parliament

Chairman of the Campaign Eddie Bone was asked to speak at the event, using the opportunity to deliver a rallying cry to the reasonably partisan crowd in attendance. Eddie began by congratulating West Bromwich for organising such a fantastic event and went on to express his pride in seeing so many people from all walks of life coming together to celebrate our nations patron Saint. He also went on to suggest that St George’s day should certainly be a public holiday, something which was greeted by the large crowd very enthusiastically. That it is not already is an indication of the work that lies ahead of the campaign to ensure that England is seen as democratically equal to many countries across europe and the world that already have a national holiday for their nations patron saint.

Support for the Campaign was definitely positive and encouraging at the event. Many people took it upon themselves to voice their support of our cause, and we would regularly hear a tap on the side of the van only to see a smiling face, a St George cross and a raised thumb of approval. All in all our pressence at the event was greeted with warmth and encouragement. One thing is for sure, awareness of the issues that face England over the next couple of years is increasing and people are more tuned into the democratic inequalities we as a nation suffer than the government would acknowledge. We have a long way to go but if yesterday was anything to go by then the future of the Campaign is bright.

£30 billion bill for the decommissioning of Scottish oil rigs in 2040. SNP

Energy Minister Fergus Ewing outrageously stated that English, Welsh and

Northern Irish taxpayers had a “moral obligation” to pay for the predicted clean

up of the North Sea oilfields, as well as the cost of deactivating Scotland’s two nuclear power plants. All this of course would happen after Scotland had become

independent of the UK and if Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond gets his way would see Scotland receiving all the financial benefits of UK oil, while the rest of us pay for it.

This also follows reports issued by the UK’s major power companies that Scotland will not be able to cope with the financial demands of renewable energy, the deficit no doubt expected to come from elsewhere. These alarming revelations are a shot across the bows for English taxpayers and clearly an indication that a parliament that puts England first is desperately needed to navigate our way through these treacherous times for the UK. As things stand it looks increasingly likely that England will be sold down the river in order to maintain the UK, with English taxpayers paying through the nose and reaping none of the benefits.

Chairman of the Campaign for an English Parliament, Eddie Bone stated “Scotland continue to dictate the terms of their independence while Cameron and co dither and navel gaze, desperate as they are to placate the Scots and maintain the UK at any cost. With an English Parliament the people of our great nation would have a voice that spoke up for them and them alone. This will be essential over the next decade to ensure that we are fairly and democratically represented at the UK negotiation table.

I shall speak to my Amendment 88, which is part of this group. It may help save your Lordships a little time. I am grateful to my noble friend for the statement that he has just made. As I see it, the position is quite clear: the Government are not going to use this Bill as a vehicle.

I tabled my amendment on 13 September, six months ago. Since then, quite a lot has happened. I tabled it because I thought we needed to resolve once and for all the question of whether Scotland should remain part of the United Kingdom, and I thought that the First Minister would use his period in office to drive a wedge between Scotland and the United Kingdom. Nothing that I have seen in the past six months has done anything other than to consolidate that view. It is therefore very important that we get this matter settled, that we concentrate on whether Scotland wishes to remain part of the United Kingdom, and that issues of devo-max and the rest are kept to one side while we do that.

I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Reid, who intervened twice while the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, was introducing his amendment to point out that devo-max means creating a federal parliament and an English parliament. He is absolutely right to say that that would need to be subject to approval by the rest of the United Kingdom.

We are concentrating here on how to get the Scottish question resolved one way or the other. Seeing how the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has suddenly started speaking to a script, I suspect that there is probably a degree of agreement between the Front Benches on the way forward on this. I hope there is. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, shakes his head, but the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, was certainly speaking to a script, although after three pages we returned to normal service. I suspect that the three pages may very well reflect the view of the Opposition, but we will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Browne, in due course.

The point is that there is a consensus in this House that we need to have a referendum; it needs to have one question-

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2012-03-21a.919.0#g974.0

The British Government has announced plans to sell off England’s (and only England’s) road network to Chinese and other Sovereign Wealth Funds. Note that these proposals only apply to England, (just as with the ongoing sales of our Forests), but that the money is used to fund the whole of the United Kingdom. England is being sold to help keep the monies flowing to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

David Cameron has already ensured that the Welsh are getting a better deal than “some other parts” of the United Kingdom - and please note that in keeping with the general contempt for England held by the British Government, England is not named and is merely dismissed as “some other parts”.

And with the prospects of a Scottish Independence Referendum the British Government is also falling over itself to offer Scotland even more than they are already getting, again all at England’s expense.

This is why the British refuse to allow England its own Parliament. To them, England is merely a colony to be tax-farmed, which is why they don’t want a representative English Parliament able to defend England from their depredations.