Ken Clarke

Today's Sunday Times confirms the Tory u-turn on their long-standing policy of English Votes on English Laws. Ken Clarke's fudge, dubbed 'English Pauses on English Clauses', is to be adopted by the incoming Cameron government.

Scottish MPs will still be able to vote on issues that affect only England under a Tory government, despite David Cameron’s vow to end the anomaly.

Members with constituencies north of the border would not be banned from voting at the crucial second and third readings of bills on English-only legislation.

As Malcolm Rifkind noted, Ken Clarke's solution would not have prevented those infamous West Lothian complaints:

By leaving the Second Reading to be voted on by all MPs this will mean that legislation that only applies to England could receive a Second Reading and be approved in principle even if it was unacceptable to a majority of MPs representing English constituencies. Thus the legislation on tuition fees, foundation hospitals or fox hunting would still have been approved.

David Cameron, who has consistently accused Labour of failing to address the West Lothian Question, and who has stated that such failure puts the Union at risk, should now expect the same accusations leveled at him. He has reneged on a promise made not only by him but also by the three Tory leaders before him (Hague, IDS and Howard).

Far too much of our tax pays for bureaucracy – and under Labour it is running wild. We have new Parliaments for Scotland and Wales, new regional development agencies and a host of quangos stuffed with Labour politicians. And for what? — David Cameron, Oxford Journal, 19 May 2000

Cameron previously dismissed the 1998 round of devolution as bureaucracy, but now he falls over himself to pander to the sensibilities of Scottish and Welsh home-rulers. He will use the same 'bureaucracy and cost' argument against calls for an English parliament and democracy in England. But Cameron is a man of few, if any, political convictions. He is a man of political expedience who sways easily with public opinion. It is up to us to hold him to the wind, to make good on his promise of preventing Scottish MPs meddling in English issues by creating a de facto English Parliament within the Union Parliament. The best way to do that is to inform your Tory candidate that you will not be voting Conservative because of this decision, and to vote for English Votes on English Laws. Do it today.

David Cameron has also promised a ‘great amount of money for Scotland’s great needs’. That's nice. What a great guy. It must be super to be able to go up to the Scottish Conference and give positive messages about funding and protecting Scottish MPs' privileged voting rights. I expect we in England will have to wait until the English Conservative Conference to hear what promises he makes England...Oh wait....There is no English Conference (nor even English representation at the UK Conference) because the Tories are institutionally racist. Still, at least we know, thanks to news reports from Scotland, that English nationhood will be enshrined in the constitution by a simple procedural change to the Westminster voting system in the "first few weeks" of a Conservative government.

Seriously, can this really be their answer to the English Question?

A response from Ken Clarke's office.

From: Gareth Young
Sent: 14 October 2009 15:59
To: YOUNG, George
Cc: CLARKE, Kenneth
Subject: RE: English Grand Committee

Dear Sir George,

I read with interest your speech to conference.

As you are probably aware the Hansard Audit of Political Engagement found that the constitutional issue that most annoys the public is that of Scottish MPs voting on English legislation, yet there was no mention of English Votes on English Laws in your speech.

In fact I don't recall 'English Votes' being mentioned at conference at all.

Has this policy now been kicked into the long-grass?

Best regards,

Gareth

---

From: "LAING, Kathryn"
Sent: Mon, December 21, 2009 19:07
Subject:RE: English Grand Committee

Thank you for email which was passed on to Mr Clarke by Sir George Young. I am just sorry that it has taken some time for us to respond.

As you may know Mr Clarke chaired David Cameron's Democracy Taskforce which addressed the West Lothian question, and he retains a close interest in the framework around which governance operates in the UK. It is an extremely important issue, which as you suggest, has been neglected over the past decade or so.

His report has not yet been tailored into party policy, however, as you know, David Cameron has been speaking regularly of his commitment to a revolutionary shake-up of the parliamentary system - proposing the introduction of transparency and effective checks and balances where they have been eroded.

Mr Clarke does think that this issue needs addressing. He has called for bills designated as 'English' - and therefore concerning only England - to be debated and amended only by MPs elected to English constituencies at the important Committee and Report stages. He believes that this offers an appropriate balance between providing much greater accountability to the English electorate, while preserving the UK as a single state.

I hope that this goes some way towards answering your question. Thank you for writing in.

Yours sincerely,

Kathryn Laing
Assistant Private Secretary to Kenneth Clarke MP

William Hague has outlined some interesting plans to "throw open the doors of parliament and enable the public to play a role in the legislative process".

Under the Tory plans, a parliamentary bill would be introduced in the way it is now. The first and main debate – the second reading stage, in which the broad principles of the proposed new laws are debated on the floor of the Commons – would be held in the normal way.

But once MPs have held this debate, the bill would be thrown open to voters before it is considered line by line at the committee stage. A website would allow voters to comment on and rewrite the broad principles of the bill, and individual clauses.

So, if we combine this with Ken Clarke's Democracy Task Force proposals, the passage of an English bill through the British parliament would be this:

First Reading: The Bill is (or clauses within are) designated English.
Second Reading: All members of the House participate as now.
Public Reading Stage: English public get a chance to rewrite bill or clauses therein.
Committee Stage: Committee Stage would be undertaken by English MPs only, in proportion to English party strengths.
Report Stage: At Report Stage the Bill would be voted on by all English Members of the House.
Third Reading: At Third Reading the Bill would be voted on again by the whole House. Since no amendments are possible at this stage, the governing party would have to accept any amendments made in Committee Stage (possibly carried through from the Public Reading) or at Report Stage or have the Bill voted down and lost.

However, if Malcolm Rifkind has his way then at the Second Stage all members (Scottish, Welsh English and Irish) will vote, but the vote can only be carried if there is a “double majority” of both the House as a whole and of MPs representing English constituencies; and similarly, at Report Stage, all members will vote, but the vote can only be carried if there is a “double majority” of both the House as a whole and of MPs
representing English constituencies.

I hope that clears up any confusion about how the Conservatives intend to govern England.

Dear Mr Rifkind,

I have been reading your amendments to Ken Clarke's DTF proposals with interest.

I appreciate that the Second Reading 'double majority' requirement affords protection to England in a way that Clarke does not, but I fail to see your case for a Report Stage in which non-English constituency MPs can debate the amendments made by an England-only Committee Stage. More to the point, why have an England-only Committee Stage at all unless it is an English Grand Committee that can be said to represent England?

In 1975 you chaired a Scottish Devolution Policy group to determine how the Conservative Party should respond to the Labour Government’s White Paper on Scottish devolution. You recommended:

"All purely Scottish legislation should be formally introduced into Parliament and then sent to the Assembly for Second Reading, Committee Stage and Report Stage. The legislation would then return to Westminster which would decide whether to give the Bill its Third Reading and might also have certain powers to amend...If the Assembly declined to give a Second Reading, the Government could either amend to meet the Assembly’s objections or withdraw the Bill."

If this level of autonomy is correct for Scotland in 1975, then why not allow English members the same autonomy up to Third Reading now?

Moreover, you recommended that the 'Scottish Assembly' members should have the power to 'initiate their own legislation', which in effect would have provided a distinct (if weak) national voice for Scotland - something that the Clarke proposals do not do for England.

Given the reality of Scottish government, I don't see any coherent logic in the Conservative proposals. Either the nation of England is an ancient and equal part of our Union of nations, a foundation for government just like Scotland, or; Great Britain is England writ large - England expanded - and England's interests are legitimately represented 'as Britain'. Either England should have voice as a nation, or not. The proposals on the table seem to allow English MPs to speak only negatively on behalf of England in reaction to the government of the day. In my opinion the proposals don't go far enough because they do not address the wider English Question, relating to the governance of England, they only serve up a technical solution to the anomaly of Scottish MPs' voting privileges.

Best regards,

Malcolm Rifkind responds:

Dear Mr Young

Thank you for your message.

You are correct that my proposals (and Kenneth Clarke’s) are far more modest than a Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly model would imply. That is because we are dealing with a different constitutional problem.

English MPs (unlike Scots and Welsh) already have a massive majority in the House of Commons. If they agree their views will always prevail. The difficulty we are seeking to resolve is when English MPs are divided on purely English issues. As you acknowledge, my proposal would resolve this and , therefore, there is no reason to go any further.

Kind regards

Malcolm Rifkind

My response is:

Dear Mr Rifkind,

Whilst we can agree that English MPs have a massive majority in the House, my response to you would be that the House splits down party - not national - lines. Majorities are party political, not territorial.

The Government of the day calls upon all its MPs, irrespective of the territory in which they were elected, in order to conduct its business. To expect English MPs to act as a national bloc would be to undermine the working of Parliament and effective government. There is no coherent logic to your solution because "English MPs" do not divide as English MPs, due to the simple fact that they are not elected as such - neither the Labour Party nor the Conservative Party have an English manifesto.

MPs are expected to vote with their conscience and/or their party, in the best interests of their constituents and/or the national interest. For MPs in the UK Parliament, elected on a UK manifesto, the national interest is the national interest of the United Kingdom. Given the nature of Parliament, which is essentially an electoral college that selects the Government, the plurality can properly be expected to put the interests of the UK Government above those of England, and to confer and reinforce that bias on the Government of the day (a point ably demonstrated by the anti-English bias of the present government which has a majority of English MPs).

This is not a different constitutional question.

Best regards,

UPDATE: And there's more.

Dear Mr Young,

I do not disagree with what you say but I draw a different conclusion from it.
MPs do normally vote with their party but, as the last few years demonstrate, they often decline to do so when they feel strongly that their party’s policy is wrong

An English Parliament or an English state would be ways of expressing English national sentiment but most people in England do not appear to want that as they feel that fundamental English interests can be protected within a United Kingdom Parliament that has a large majority of MPs from English constituencies. Public opinion wants a reform of the House of Commons to protect English interests but does not seem to wish to go any further than is necessary to deal with the “West Lothian “ anomaly.

You are entitled to wish to go further but that is where we have to agree to differ.

Regards

Malcolm Rifkind

For those who are having difficulty following this, I have prepared a handy little guide to Ken Clarke and Malcolm Rifkind's solution to the West Lothian Question.

Rifkind’s Scottish Assembly plan sounds familiar may also be of interest.

UPDATE II

Dear Mr Rifkind,

It depends on which polls you take. Depending on the question asked there is either demand for an English parliament, or demand for English votes on English Laws, or the two options combined dominate over a preference for the Status Quo, regional assemblies or independence.

However, there have been no polls since the Democracy Task Force issued its recommendations. And I fear that you will have difficulty explaining the logic of this solution to an increasingly exasperated English public. The original EVoEL was unworkable in practive, but at least it had a certain logic.

The present situation could be helped if politicians began referring to England instead of "This Country" or 'the nation's" when talking about education and health policy. At present there is a denial of England, and this forbidding does neither England nor democracy any service.

Best,

Recent polling on the subject is here.

Thank you for your further comments.

I have no difficulty with you publicising my earlier replies. It would, however, have been a courtesy to inform me that you intended doing so. Politeness doesn’t cost anything and is a virtue even in these modern times. You might like to reflect on this.
(You can also put these comments on your blog as well !)

Malcolm Rifkind

After a period of reflection....

Dear Mr Rifkind,

In your earlier response you invoke the people: "Public opinion wants a reform of the House of Commons to protect English interests but does not seem to wish to go any further than is necessary to deal with the “West Lothian“ anomaly."

It is, at best, a specious statement. The Department of Constitutional Affairs (now the Ministry of Justice) have conducted no research whatsoever into demand for an English parliament. Neither have the Conservative Party - unless you have done it in private and not disclosed the results.

As you are so keen on invoking the people, perhaps you and your good colleagues would deign to ask the people. It would be a courtesy. How about an English version of the Calman Commission, an English Constitutional Convention, a Royal Commission on the Governance of England and, following, a referendum on the recommendations?

Or are my countrymen and women less deserving of a say than yours? Do we just sit back quietly as our partner nations debate (again) changing the balance and working of the Union; mute as the Scots partake in the Calman Commission and National Conversation, and the Welsh in the All Wales Convention? The position of the Conservative Party is that an "imperfect Union is better than anything that threatens it". But that is the position of the Conservative Party, not the position of the people of England. We do not know the position of the people of England because they have never been consulted. What level of imperfection and asymmetry are we prepared to tolerate, and; what are the benefits to England of the options that, allegedly, "threaten" the Union?

These are issues that we - as England - are entitled to discuss, and in the absence of any forum in which to do it, England is having its debate online, on blogs, on forums, and on newspaper letters pages. For this reason I have no hesitation in publishing correspondence from MPs because it's the only chance we get to debate the issue. This is a debate that needs to be in the public domain, whether you or the rest of the Westminster Village like it or not.

In March of 2008 IPSOS Mori found that 52% of the public don't understand the policy of "English Votes on English Laws". I found it an incredibly low figure given that my conversations with Conservative MPs have led me to believe that the majority of the Parliamentary Conservative Party don't understand it either. It's been a Conservative manifesto pledge since the time of William Hague (in your manifesto under Duncan Smith, Howard and now Cameron), yet no one in the Party - not even Sir George Young - was able to explain how it would work. For years I've badgered the Conservative Party over their pathetic ill-thought through response to asymmetric devolution, and now I'm informed that the Party is looking into Clarke's recommendation, a bastardised version of English Votes on English Laws, which I call "English Pauses for English Clauses". And you're still not sure!

I look forward the new Conservative policy with relish. I hope you are sure of what "the people" want because if you are wrong then the question of England has the potential to split the party just like the question of Europe did, and people like me in cooperation with the Lib Dems, Labour and the SNP will work tirelessly to ensure that it does. You will deserve it because you will have been arrogant. Despite being a natural Conservative supporter, and a unionist still (if only just), I will not tolerate a Westminster solution to the English Question - only the people of England can answer the English Question!

Best regards,

It's been a bit quiet on this blog for the last few days. This is mostly because I've been up in Scotland for a long weekend, drinking my face off and attending the wedding of my good friend Mr MacIsaac. However, that's the end of fraternising with the enemy, hostilities are resumed. Good to be back...

Ken Clarke's plans to solve the West Lothian Question, have been greeted with predictable disdain by most political commentators. Typical was Iain Dale who declared that "England deserved better":

From what I have seen I cannot in any way defend this so-called solution. It is not even a half way house. Either you believe that England should have devolved government or you don't. If you do, then you either believe in English votes on English measures or you believe in some form of English Parliament.

But Iain Dale is wrong. Not that England deserves better, of course she does, but because neither Clarke's solution NOR English Votes on English measures is for people that believe that England should have "devolved government" (or "English government" if you prefer). Instead both are crude technical devices that attempt to right the democratic deficit brought about the very absence of English government. Clarke's contrivance is contrived to such a ludicrous degree precisely to avoid even the pretence of an English parliament that EVoEM offers, and the consequent threat that such a democratic English body would pose to the Union when Scots object to it on the grounds of their own irrelevance.

Indeed, as Clarke went to pains to point out on the Today Programme, his solution "means that the government retains control of the agenda; it retains control of the money." Scottish MPs would vote on the second reading of an English bill - "which is the vote on the principle of the bill" - thereby ensuring the legitimacy of any cabinet government that contained Scottish ministers. But as Malcom Rifkind points out Clarke's mechanism would not have prevented the disgraceful actions of Scottish MPs during the Foundation Hospital and Top-up Fee legislation, even if last week's English Planning Bill amendment, scuppered by Brown's non-English MPs, could have been carried by English rebels.

Under Clarke's scheme the English will be denied the affirmative expression of national identity afforded to the Scots; instead English MPs will speak for England only negatively by wrecking UK Government legislation by the of tabling ludicrous amendments, or the deleting of English clauses at committee stage. But fear not, for as Clarke points out the UK government retains control, and:

"at the final stage all the UK members would vote so if the English have transformed it to a way that is unacceptable to the Government the government could ask its majority to veto and abort the measure."

Or in other words if the English have transformed the bill to a manner that is acceptable to the English, the government could abort the legislation. Malcolm Rifkind does offer an slightly more sensible alternative to Clarke's madness:

There could be a requirement that at Second Reading and at Report stage, for a vote to be carried on amendments to an England-only Bill, the vote, to be declared carried, would need a majority both of the House as a whole and of MPs representing English constituencies.

Though one has to ask Rifkind why, if the English can veto the UK Government, should we bother letting the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish vote at all; why not just let the English draft and vote on their own legislation instead of muddling up UK Government and non-English MPs in the process? The simple answer to that question is "The Barnett Formula", a funding mechanism that provides Scottish MPs with the constitutional right to vote on English legislation by dint of the fact that English domestic legislation determines the block grant due to Scots as an inflated percentage of what is available to the English. Naturally Ken Clarke does not even bother to address the Barnett Formula.

Toque recommends.
Paul Kingsnorth: A radical answer to the Mid-Lothian question
Tony Sharp: Abandonment of the English
Fraser Nelson: Clarke waters down the West Lothian Answer
Womble on Tour: Do These Guys Understand The Problem ?

If the Conservatives do adopt as policy Ken Clarke's suggestion (or for that matter Rifkind's) I will join the SNP and campaign for English and Scottish independence. If I can't have an English parliament and government inside the Union then I'll have it outside the Union, it's as simple as that. And the sooner the English Conservative Party - for English is what it is - understands that the better for both England and the Union. The English Question is not just about voting irregularities within the Commons, it is about recognising that England is a nation deserving of the very same sovereignty as any other nation. All that "English Votes", or any variation on that theme, achieves is to inflame English nationalism and toss a bludgeon to Scottish nationalists with which to beat the last life out of the Union.

Prior to the last General Election I had Jeremy Wright (Conservative parliamentary candidate, and now MP) at my doorstep canvassing for my vote. I challenged him:

Me: Well, you may remember that I emailed you over the question of an English Parliament.

Him: Ah...yes!

Me: You probably also saw my letter about Andy King in the Weekly News?

[Laughs]

Me: As I said, there should be an English Parliament?

Him: I don't think that we need an extra layer of politicians.....extra layers of bureaucracy, red tape and expense.

Me: Oh, so you are in favour of abolishing the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh assembly then?

Him: No, I don't think that we can do that.

Me: Well you know my view. I think your plans would be a recipe for constitutional disaster, they don't give England constitutional existence, they would be subjective because the speaker would decide what legislation was 'English-only' and Scots would argue that it was not because of the knock-on effect to their subsidies.

Him: Hmmm...

Me: And, under your plans, it would be practically impossible for a Scot to hold a government position at Westminster - a Scottish Prime Minister, not that the Tories will have one, would be excluded from up to 70% of the legislation passed by Westminster.

Him: Yes, and I don't think that's a bad thing. Do you?

Me: Err....right then. Good luck.

And there it was, a Conservative joking about the prospect of excluding Scots from UK government.

Today Ken Clarke, head honcho of the Conservative's Democracy Task Force, has taken a step closer to making that joke a political reality:

The Conservatives are to recommend that Scottish MPs be banned from voting on issues that only affect England.

Former Chancellor Kenneth Clarke, who heads the Conservatives Democracy task force, told the Observer newspaper of the proposed recommendations.

He also said there was no prospect of backing down on some form of English votes for English questions.

Essentially these plans mean that a future Scottish prime minister of the UK would be unable to vote on health, education and transport. Scottish representation in Government would be slashed because it would be illogical for them to hold positions of power in the cabinet over policy areas on which they could not vote. You might expect me to welcome these proposals, and in a sense I do; English Votes on English Matters is so unworkable and prejudiced towards Scotland that it will inevitably lead to a constitutional impasse so great that an English parliament will be the only solution. But at what cost? The alienation of Scotland; the break-up of the Union; an end to the principles of parliamentary democracy? Can we have a union in which MPs are barred from the top-jobs because they represent a non-English constituency?

Back in March I wrote to the Democracy Task Force outlining my objections to English Votes on English Matters. To date I have not received a reply, or even an acknowledgment. I don't know what the Conservatives are playing at but they are playing a very dangerous game.

The Observer:

If the policy became law, it would make it almost impossible for Brown to become Prime Minister as he would have no right to vote on issues affecting the vast majority of voters.