Saturday, July 05, 2008

Telegraph Column: West Lothian Question Needs an Answer

Con Coughlin and I got shunted out of the Telegraph yesterday so my column only appeared on the Telegraph website. As I am sure you all missed reading my words of wisdom in the print version, here they are in full!

Nowadays, message is everything in politics. If you have a clear, easily explicable policy, then you’re likely to attract support. If the message is confused or complicated, support drifts to your opponents. So when I read Ken Clarke’s Democracy Task Force report on the West Lothian Question and the future governance of England, my heart sank.

On the plus side, it asks the right questions and recognises both that a problem exists and that if nothing is done about it there will be a growing resentment among the English. Sadly, the Clarke Report provides answers that are so complicated and obtuse that they will be virtually impossible to sell to the man propping up the bar at the Dog & Duck.

At the last election, Conservative candidates – and I was one – stood on a platform of English Votes for English Measures. It’s a simple formula and easy to sell to the electorate. If a Bill is introduced into Parliament which only affects England and Wales, then Scottish MPs would be barred from voting on it. For those of us who support the creation of an English Parliament, it didn’t go quite far enough, but no matter. It was a start and a policy that proved reasonably popular.

The whole point of a policy commission is to think the unthinkable. In Ken Clarke’s case, he has played safe and watered down English Votes for English Measures into something which represents an unhappy, wishy washy compromise.

His proposal would allow Scottish MPs to vote on English-only Bills at Second and Third Readings, but not at the Committee or Report stages. This would have the effect of Scottish MPs not being able to block English amendments. However – and this is the important part – they would still be able to force through the main principle of a Bill on its Second Reading.

As Sir Malcolm Rifkind has eloquently pointed out, it is fatuous to believe that English MPs could then substantially change a Bill. English-only amendments, says Sir Malcolm, “could not reverse the basic objective of such a Bill which had been approved by the House of Commons as a whole, as any attempt to do so would be designated a ‘wrecking amendment’ and ruled out of order.” So unless English MPs are able to table amendments saying ‘delete all and insert nothing’, Mr Clarke’s proposals are about as meaningful as a shower in the Sahara. Policies which try to appeal to the lowest common denominator convince no one.

Most people I have talked to about this over the last few days have used the word ‘compromise’ to describe Clarke’s policy. Some say it as a compliment, others are more pejorative. It’s clear that the intention is to appease supporters of a more radical form of devolution and neutralise the staunchest defenders of the existing union and constitutional arrangements. Like most forms of appeasement, it has ended up pleasing no one.

When David Cameron became Tory leader, one of his first commitments was to make devolution work. He recognised that there was no going back. Since then, the fortunes of Welsh Conservatives in particular have been in the ascendant. There has, however, been a consistent failure by the Conservative Party to recognise the need for proper English devolution. The debate within the party has been characterised by lazy thinking, scare stories and a desire to put the subject into the ‘too difficult tray’. Too many people in the Tory hierarchy still associate English nationalism with the BNP and race. Too many still hold to the myth that an English Parliament means more politicians and another layer of bureaucracy. Even Shadow Justice Secretary Nick Herbert trotted out that tired old canard this week.

An English Parliament does not have to mirror the Scottish Parliament’s remit or its powers, although personally I think it should. It certainly doesn’t need a raft of extra politicos funded by the public purse. Westminster MPs could sit for one week a month in an English Parliament. Had Labour not botched the constitutional settlement, the same could have been done by Welsh MPs and Scottish MPs in their own assemblies. But we are where we are.

The one thing Ken Clarke said this week which is right is that not every constituent part of the United Kingdom has to operate in exactly the same way. Where we part company is that he believes his proposals will be seen as fair and equitable by the English and I do not.

David Cameron and Nick Herbert were very careful not to endorse the Clarke proposals wholeheartedly. I take this as an encouraging sign. There is still time to convince them that they do not go far enough and are not electorally sellable. Mr Cameron and his team should think back to last October. Why was the Inheritance Tax proposal received so well? It was because it was easily understandable, easy to explain and appealed to people’s sense of aspiration. It is relatively simple to develop a policy on English devolution which meets each of those criteria. Sadly, Ken Clarke has failed to do so.


26 comments:

Anonymous said...

The manifesto that Cameron stood on in his leadership election explicitly included English Votes for English Laws. He is obliged to deliver it in my view.

Anonymous said...

If they didn't want "an unhappy, wishy washy compromise", why ask Ken Clarke?

Anonymous said...

Why all the fuss about devolution or independence for Scotland when we are about to suffer far worse from the the EU?

Your highly paid friends in Westminster have rammed through ratification of a treaty on which they promised a referendum to the voters.

So much has been taken from us that the disintegration of the United Kingdom will be just another step on the way to Euro-federalism.

Where does Cameron stand on this? Still no word when they there could be plenty.

Anonymous said...

English votes for English issues is nowhere near enough, not while the 50 odd million people of England are democratically spat at and enchained by Brown and his Scots mafia.

It is nowhere near enough while every minute of every day Brown sticks his bloodied stumps up at over 50 million of us in England and continues to deny us the parliament and civil liberties he has so undemocratically given to Scotland, Ireland and Wales.

We in England are second class citizens in this crumbling union, an enslaved 50 million, forced to pay for every other part of the union's democracy and rights.

This cowardly, running sore of a proposal of Clarke's is just one further link in the chain of England's creeping enslavement.

Clarke's report must be rejected.

Anonymous said...

Iain,

Time and again the WLQ is danced around by those in the old 3 parties and Clarke's latest is no exception.

The real issue is do we need another layer (national) underneath Westminster (union)? I say not.

The error, IMHO, was to create MSP/MAs in the first place instead of the logical solution of having Scottish/Welsh/N Irish MPs going home to discuss local matters while English MPs remained in Westminster to discuss English matters.

English MPs manage the workload, so why the need for two Scots to do the job of one English?

A point raised is if legislation is not that clear cut. Solution: MAKE IT CLEAR CUT. The quality of laws written by all the lawyers that infest Parliament these days... cobblers' children, it seems.

The problem with more elected "officials" is that they, by their very nature, "get busy" and interfere in our lives more and more, find things to regulate, legislate, build (with our cash but not approval), control or prohibit. We need LESS politicians who only spend their time on the key issues of Rule of Law, Defence and ensuring the Nation operates efficiently.

The answer is clear - let the MSPs and Scottish MPs fight it out for the seats and be done with it. Put the chairs out and get that music playing. As for the Regional Assemblies/RDAs - fire the lot NOW. No chairs, no music, just their cards and NO severance or pensions. DO NOT PASS GO. DO NOT COLLECT £200k.

We save on wages/pensions, offices, staff and of course all the unwanted windbaggery of excessive legislation. By keeping the same people doing National and Union business surely that is the way to ensure more joined up thinking.

The thought of a bunch of jumped-up councillors scrabbling over the trough of an English Parliament is more annoying than a Scottish MP being involved in English matters, to be honest, but only by a cigarette paper's width, mind.

p.s. any suggestions of a new building for the English Parliament? No, please, "Holey Roof House" shows it is just a pork-barrelling spree at our expense.

Iain Dale said...

Tim, did you actually read my article? I made clear you do not need another layer of politicians. And you certainly do not need a new building. We already have one.

Anonymous said...

Iain: I expect your piece was shunted out of the print edition to make room for something like the article they ran earlier in the week: Ann Wintour, editor of Vogue, wore the same dress on three separate occasions. Shock, horror! That's the sort of story the Telegraph now favours. With colour pix!

Anonymous said...

Iain,

I did.

You did say part of what I outlined, but you then said "we are where we are" which implies you think that time has passed to deal with the duplication in Wales, Scotland and NI.

Dealing with an English Parliament in the way you imply treats the English differently and almost as an afterthought. It is dancing around the logical conclusion that we have 2 layers instead of 1 everywhere and solution needs only 1 layer (rid ourselves of MSPs and RDAs which are proto Regional Assemblies).

While the MSPs/MAs exist in parallel, the door is open to devolve powers to RDAs over time to bring them into "parity" with the other devolved chambers. That would be a disaster.

Daily Referendum said...

The simple solution to this is:

Stop Scottish MPs voting in England on any matter that is already voted on in Scotland.

strapworld said...

I agree. I honestly thought people were innocent until proven guilty!

But this is the way the socialists are whenever they are in trouble they throw as much dirt as possible.

IF Mr Lewis was good enough for the Justice Ministry to be about to appoint him a Justice of the Peace - and they make, presumably, strict background checks. Then he is good enough for Boris.

When he is exonerated and welcomed back by Boris. I bet not one apology will be found!!!!

Anonymous said...

The argument that policy needs to be simple and saleable is a strong one. However, whilst the government cannot deny that this problem exists, it is fairly clear that they want to perceive the solution far too complicated for anyone to understand in the hope it will go away. So the Conservatives are brave to claim they can answer this question to satisfy all factions. Good luck!

hatfield girl said...

We shall soon know if the West Lothian Question is past its sell-by date, which it seems to be.

Scottish voters chose the Scottish National Party to govern them. New Labour are having difficulty finding a candidate for the Glasgow East Westminster seat acceptable to New Labour unionism. Levels of satisfaction with the SNP government are very high - many in England would trade Brown for Salmond if there has to be a prime minister sitting for a seat in a country that has its own Parliament already.

Scotland has left the Union unilaterally, and settling the terms of the separation is what is going on now. Northern Ireland has gone too, apart from popping in to improve the terms of separation for leftover votes that determine English liberties (an ironic justice there).

Brown, Darling, Browne, Alexander - they're all weird and they're all over the edge of the cliff and pedalling air. It's time the Head of State summoned the last of her strength, dissolved this hapless Parliament that really ended with Blair's overthrow, and a general election was held now. Then the federal relations within the United Kingdom can be recast to match reality, with an elected prime minister representing an English seat in power in England in a reconvened English Parliament.

As for regionalisation being imperative in England because it is to large to fit EU regionalisation policies - that comes after intra-UK federal relations are settled. Lisbon is dead in the water anyway.

Tony said...

It is deliberately misleading of anyone to suggest an English Parliament would require another layer of political bureaucracy.

As I have said on my blog and elsewhere, turning the Commons into the elected English chamber dealing with devolved matters - and the Lords into a UK Parliament dealing with matters covering the whole Union - negates another political layer.

It would be nigh on impossible to reverse devolution in Scotland, Wales and NI. But it is an injustice to treat England as a second class country in the Union because of its size and financial clout.

There is absolutely no justification for MPs from constituencies outside England to vote on matters that only affect England - at ANY stage of a Bill.

Ken Clarke has got this completely wrong and every Conservative I have spoken with on this matter opposes the proposal put forward. David Cameron must listen to the grassroots on this subject and press ahead with EVoEL at the very minimum. Anything else would be a dangerous direction to take.

Bill Brinsmead said...

Most comments on devolution and the funding from Iain Dale and Conservativehome are mean, metrocentric, anti scottish and careless about the future of the Union.

Leave it out.

Out here we want the Scots to stay in the Union. For this to happen we need goodwill and generosity on all sides.

Back to my muck spreading.

Anonymous said...

In the past Conservatives on councils have tried to abolish regional assemblies in England but have been overuled by NL, Lib'dems, and apparently faith groups as well.Now that they have the majority of councils in England why can't they abolish RA's? Do we have to wait for a grand gesture from Cameron if he's elected?
England is technically divided at present and in danger of being swallowed up by the eu as mere regions. Would it not be a show of good faith towards England in abolishing them now?. They are another tier of over promoted and expensive politicians anyway.

Daily Referendum said...

We want to keep the Union and have fair deal for England. English votes on English matters and an English Parliament are ways to keep the Union, but on an even footing. In both circumstances Parliament would still meet and vote on Union matters. No one has suggested that the Union should split.

Anonymous said...

Hi Iain. Are you in favour of "straight votes for straight laws"? Why is it fair that a homosexual MP can vote to lower the age of gay sexual consent for young people, but straight MPs can't vote to do the same for the children of gays, because gays obviously don't have children. Are you in favour of straight votes for straight laws, or even a devolved straight parliament?
Do you support ending the massive financial subsidy we give to homosexuals through AIDS funding etc?
Should there be a limit on the number of gays in the cabinet, as homosexulas are disproportionately represented in the government. are we being governed by a gay mafia, as the Sun asked? Is it fair on England to be ruled by a gay raj?

Iain Dale said...

I considered not allowing through that last post, but it was so hilarious that I thought I would allow others to enjoy it too. Barking.

Anonymous said...

That gay raj poster could be a certain MP from Glasgow who has made the same points to Campaign English Parliament members about an English Parliament.

Anonymous said...

English and Welsh votes for English-Welsh measures is a complete non-starter. If the UK government is Labour, and the Conservatives have a majority in England and Wales, no bill would ever be passed. Unless, that is, you set up a separate English-and-Welsh government, with its own first minister, which could propose laws which would then be passed by the English and Welsh MPs.

One thing we could do is abolish the Lords, put the UK parliament in the red chamber and the English-and-Welsh parliament in the green chamber. The Scottish Parliament makes do without the Lords, so the other parliaments could do so too.

Another solution would be reduce the Scottish Parliament to the level of the Welsh Assembly, i.e. take away its power to make laws and leave it only with the power to decide how the funds are spent. But no one would dare propose this.

Anonymous said...

ENGLISH PARLIAMENT NOW!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

from politicians outed

Tom Harris MP, Labour, Glasgow South

I do not normally respond to correspondents who are not my constituents, however, given the subject matter of your concern, I am happy to do so now.

Firstly, I was elected as a member of the UK Parliament - not as a Scottish member, but as a full member of the UK Parliament. The idea that there should be some mps with fewer rights than others is nonsense. Did you, I wonder, object in a similar way to Northern Ireland mps voting on English, Scottish and UK matters during the period 1922-1972, when Northern Ireland had its own Parliament and Prime Minister? Do you believe London mps should be prevented from voting on matters that affect the rest of the UK but don’t affect London because those matters have been devolved to the Greater London Authority?

The argument that I should not vote on matters that don’t affect my constituency is also, I believe, wrong. I am not gay, but I am happy to vote on civic partnerships. Neither am I disabled - does that mean I should not vote on disability rights matters? I am not a woman, so perhaps I should abstain when it comes to abortion issues?

If Scottish mps were to abstain from voting on English matters, we could end up with one party having a majority on English matters and a different party having a majority on UK matters, which would be a complete disaster.

Lastly, I assume you have written to those Scottish mps who voted AGAINST foundation hospitals is similar terms? It seems that most English people I speak to about this subject don’t object to Scottish mps taking part in votes on English matters, provided we vote the way they want us to.

rosie said...

Auntie Flo you said it all for me.
I want my own country passing its own laws in its own interests. England.
I haven't the slightest rancour if the Scots want the same. I just refuse to be dominated over by Scotland and its Labour rabble.
English parliament now.
If the Tories do not have that policy I will still refuse to vote for them
For the last 10 years or so I have voted in every local and Westminster election and just have to write 'None of the Above'.
I am one of millions completely disenfranchaised, however I refuse to stay home and be considered apathetic.
The English are second rate citizens and need equality before the law.
Can Sir Stuart Wheeler do anything with our equality laws? Or take a case to the Human Rights courts in Strasbourg? now that would be ironic!!Or maybe he is a Unionist.

Anonymous said...

Countryman said...

"Out here we want the Scots to stay in the Union."

Talk for yourself. They can't go fast enough.

Terry Heath said...

Tom Harris must have been furious when Labour first proposed that he be barred from voting one matters that concern his constituents.

He must have been incandescent when he learned he was to be excluded on such 'flagship' policy areas as Health, Education, Housing, Fishing and Planning (nuclear power), amongst many othres.

In a representative democracy, he must be saddened that he represents his constituents on fewer issues than English MPs. Some might say he now belongs to the second class of MPs at Westminster and one can easily understand why they would say this.

These crazy policies now mean... we could end up with one party (say the SNP)having a majority on Scottish matters and a different party (say Labour)having a majority on UK matters, which would be a complete disaster (for Labour).

...oh wait! That's what we have now!

You'd have to have a heart of stone not to laugh at the situation Labour have created for thenmselves.

Anonymous said...

I'm interested that you consider the ratio of UK to English time 3:1. I would have thought that more time would be required for English matters. The other question I have, is why is it too late to have Welsh A/MPs split their time between Cardiff and London. London's not too far away..!