ENGLISH VOTES ON ENGLISH LAWS OR AN ENGLISH CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION?
The Campaign for an English Parliament demands urgent clarification from the new Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government on the nature of their plans to address the governance of England.
The threat of an anti-Conservative “Progressive Alliance” which called upon 58 Labour, Lib Dem and SNP MPs from Scotland; 3 SDLP MPs from Northern Ireland, and; 32 Labour, Lib Dem and Plaid Cymru MPs from Wales to provide a rainbow coalition majority that trumped the Conservative majority in England, threw the future of the Union into serious question.
It was not just the voting privileges of the non-English MPs that was of concern (the so-called West Lothian Question) it was the fact that these non-English MPs constitute a sizable proportion of the Commons’ electoral college that chooses the prime minister and government of the United Kingdom, and hence – because England has no parliament and government of its own – of England. There was a fleeting possibility that these MPs elected outside England’s borders would impose upon England a government not of England’s choosing, that did not have a majority of English MPs, but could nevertheless formulate policy for England and bring it before the House. A government such as this, legislating on matters such as health and education that are devolved to the other nations of the UK, could not possibly claim legitimacy as the government of England.
To address the West Lothian Question the Conservative Party Manifesto promises that they “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“. This policy, referred to as ‘English Votes on English Laws’ until 2009 when it was revised to allow non-English MPs to vote on the Second and decisive Third Reading of England-only Bills, attempts to addresses the undemocratic voting rights of non-English MPs within Parliament but it does not address the question of who governs England and by what right. The people of England deserve an English Government that governs in the interests of England, immediately accountable to an English Parliament, and ultimately accountable to the people of England alone.
The Conservative’s coalition partners make no mention of ‘English Votes on English Laws’ in their manifesto. Instead the Liberal Democrats pledge to “Address the status of England within a federal Britain, through the Constitutional Convention set up to draft a written constitution for the UK as a whole”.
The Campaign for an English Parliament favours* the Liberal Democrat policy because of its more holistic federal approach, which asks the people for resolution of the English Question, as opposed to the Conservative’s technical top-down Parliamentary mitigation of the much narrower West Lothian Question.
We call upon the new coalition Government to outline their joint policy on the future of England and we ask that a Minister for England is appointed with special remit to oversee that policy and to represent England’s interests in Cabinet, as the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales will do for their people in Cabinet discussions over reform of the Barnett Formula, Scotland’s Calman Commission proposals, and the plans for a referendum on a Welsh Parliament with primary legislative powers. England requires a voice in Cabinet.
The National Council welcomes the initiative reported on the BBC website for Scotland (sic) that there will also be a commission to discuss the possibility of setting up an Assembly for England and to look at the West Lothian question. However, the CEP will continue to campaign for a separately elected English Parliament or assembly with primary legislating powers in devolved matters.
* We qualify our preference for a constitutional convention on the proviso that the that the convention is preceded by a “National Conversation for England” so that the people of England can participate in a full and rounded discussion on the governance of England and England’s place within the Union, and surveyed on the options before us, before a phalanx of politicians, union leaders, churchmen, self-appointed or government appointed civic leaders all begin pontificating on what’s best for “the people”.
The National Council of the Campaign for an English Parliament, 12th May, 2010
Contact: Scilla Cullen
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
I have sent a letter about this very issue to the Western Daily Press,it might not be published, as is the case with over half of my letters nowadays.
May 13th, 2010 at 6:15 amI could not believe it when I looked up on the BBC election results that the Welsh and Scottish Nationalists had less as a percentage of votes cast by a long way than UKIP and not far ahead of the English Democrats!
Yet they were being invited to join the Rainbow Alliance, says it all!
I am sure UKIP and the English Democrats would have been invited if they had won any seats. Of course First Past the Post prevents this from happening. I noticed today plans to scrap the House of Lords and establish an elected Senate, and plans by the Scottish Secretary for an English assembly. Perhaps we could have a lower chamber. Of course this was an UK election not an English one, so that the invitation of MPs from the other home nations is not surprising. With an English Prime Minister, has the English Question declined in importance?
May 13th, 2010 at 7:05 amCameron is a Scottish name. David Cameron although born in England had a Scottish father and his family came from Inverness. His mother was Mary Fleur Mount, who was the daughter of the Baronet Sir William Mount. This may explain why Cameron is a Unionist and is happy to deny the existence of England. He clearly does not believe in democracy.
May 13th, 2010 at 7:26 amThe English question has definitely not declined in importance, except perhaps in your Anglophobic mind.
No! The English question has definitely not declined. We hear of cuts in the NHS already. This coalition government only has power over the English health service. How are these cuts to be spread evenly across the UK. We need to know!
May 13th, 2010 at 10:44 amWe shall be monitoring such legislation and the regulations attached to legislation, which are rarely debated in the Westminster Parliament, and exactly what is meant by a commission on the WLQ or an English Assembly. Clearly dual mandated Westminster MPs in a grand committee were not acceptable to the Scots and Irish and are no more acceptable to us. Neither is the Clarke fudge alluded to above.
I think that the idea of a Minister for England is an excellent one. What could possibly be the objection to that? It’s hardly going to break the Union.
May 13th, 2010 at 7:47 pmScotland and Wales have their own ministers so why not England?
I’ve written to my Tory MP Chris Grayling to ask him his views
I have read that the House of Lords is to be abolished and replaced with a fully elected Senate. If our Celtic MPs moved up to this new Senate then an English Parliament with PR or AV would be ready made. Then Wales could be given a Parliament as well. A simple solution!
May 13th, 2010 at 8:22 pmSteve, where did you read that? Seems like a simple idea, but presumably English MPs would not also immediately join this senate?
May 13th, 2010 at 8:29 pmMatt,
A Liberal Democrat deliberately decided what our great and good leaders haven’t told we plebs yet, that the Tories & Libberals plan to change the House of Lords to an elected assembly with PR.
May 14th, 2010 at 2:03 pmWell it’s time we all did a little more to heighten awareness of the injustices being perpetrated on the English people.
Here’s an article about cuts in the NHS. The English NHS, but no mention that that is the case.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/7720675/It-is-time-to-stop-fetishising-hospitals-lets-let-the-axe-fall.html?state=target#postacomment&postingId=7724315
Come on people, let’s mobilize, get your friends, relatives and neighbours to comment on newspaper websites on a daily basis that where appropriate they should make it clear that they should say “England”
Nothing abusive, just plain reasoning in calling for an end to this farce and let’s get democracy restored in England.
It’s time for concerted action, spread the word, blitz them!
May 14th, 2010 at 3:38 pmSorry for being slow in responding – I read it in the Daily Mail though the main article has moved. Have a look at this link and scroll down to the part next to ‘Bonus Blitz’. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1277884/Jack-Straw-hits-fix-Government-plans-change-rules.html
I will copy the relevant parts for you:
The Lords move would mean hundreds of peers being axed and elections introduced to the upper House for the first time.
May 15th, 2010 at 3:34 pmAround 300 Senators would be created, expected to earn salaries of up to £60,000 a year.
However, the Lords will fiercely resist any attempt to make it vote itself out of existence.
But the House of Commons agreed in a vote last year that the Lords should be 80 per cent or 100 per cent elected.
The move would break the link between peerages and the right to sit in the legislature following the cash-for-honours controversy.
Elections to the new Senate are likely to take place on the same day as General Elections.
Elected peers would serve a long, fixed term – possibly for two or three Parliaments.
Reform would mean the 746-strong Lords reduced in size to as few as 300 members.
But such a move is likely to run into resistance from traditionalists on the Tory right.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1277884/Jack-Straw-hits-fix-Government-plans-change-rules.html#ixzz0o0bp1XV5
There is now no mention of the WLQ on the BBC News site
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8693832.stm
It seems that the BBC have decided to drop it! It is not mentioned on BBC Ceefax’s section on Coalition plans either. How long before the Coalition decide to drop plans for a Commission, probably on the grounds that they are to busy dealing with the deficit! Can’t they do more than one thing at a time?
May 24th, 2010 at 8:51 am