West Lothian Commission

I'm the proud owner of a letter from Mark Harper, in which he states "There is no link between the Barnett Formula and the West Lothian question".

Yesterday he wasn't daft enough to put such a view on the Hansard record:

Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed, Liberal Democrat)

Will the commission be able to consider what is really the Berwick-upon-Tweed question: how has it come about over so many years that Scotland seems to have had more money for schools and roads, and a great deal of say in the affairs of England?

Mark Harper (Parliamentary Secretary (Political and Constitutional Reform), Cabinet Office; Forest of Dean, Conservative)

Specifically, we have made it clear that the commission will not be able to look at the financial questions. The Government have committed to resolving them, but we have made it clear that the deficit must be dealt with first, and then those other matters will be taken forward by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.

How peculiar that reform of the Barnett Formula must wait until the deficit is down. Why? If the Government manages to balance the books so that we have no deficit but still have a national debt of £1.1 trillion, why would that be any better time than now to reform the Barnett Formula? Answer: It wouldn't. In fact it could be far worse because people will have been living under austerity Britain for longer and will be more severely affected by a fall in central government funding.

If Harper was being honest he would have said that the Government want to wait until after the referendum on Scottish independence before debating whether to cut the budget of the Scottish Government by £4.5 billion, by which time they hope that Scotland will have voted to remain in the UK and the Scotland Bill will give the illusion of financial accountability, better enabling the UK Government to blame the Scottish Government when the axe falls on Scotland's public services.

As I have said before, I think Unionist politicians will regret not having reformed the Barnett Formula in times of plenty.

Regular readers of this blog will be aware of the 'Upper West Lothian Question'. But Mark Harper isn't. Mark Harper doesn't think that the West Lothian Question has any bearing on reform of the House of Lords:

Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock, Labour)

I thank the Minister for that answer. I am sure he will be aware that constitutional change in one area can affect other areas. How might any changes suggested by his West Lothian commission affect reform of the House of Lords?

Mark Harper (Parliamentary Secretary (Political and Constitutional Reform), Cabinet Office; Forest of Dean, Conservative)

I am not sure that those two matters are connected at all. The commission’s terms of reference are specifically to consider the effects and consequences for the House of Commons of the devolution arrangements in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The hon. Lady will know that we have appointed experts to the commission. They will come back to the Government with their recommendations, and I have committed then to talk to all parties in this House about how we might proceed further.

Who put this Harper idiot in charge?

John Redwood (Wokingham, Conservative):

May we have an early debate on who speaks for England and who should make decisions for England in an increasingly devolved United Kingdom?

George Young (Leader of the House of Commons, House of Commons; North West Hampshire, Conservative):

I understand my right hon. Friend’s concern. We announced on Tuesday the establishment of the West Lothian commission, which will look at a range of options. For example, with issues that affect only England and Wales, one option would be that only English and Welsh MPs voted on such matters. In my view, that would be an appropriate rebalancing of the constitution to take account of the fact that in Scotland they have their own Parliament in which issues are resolved on which English MPs cannot vote. It seems somewhat perverse that Scottish MPs can vote on those very same issues when they apply only to England.

Do you see what George Young has done there? John Redwood has asked him a specific question, but instead of providing a straight Yes or No answer he obfuscates, avoids the question and moves on.

The West Lothian Commission is not about answering the question of who speaks for England. The West Lothian Commission is a collection of technocrats tasked with investigating changes to Parliamentary procedure in regard to MPs' voting privileges. It is not within its remit to recommend a Secretary of State for England, an English parliament elected on a mandate from the people of England, an English government, a First Minister for England or anything or anyone who might conceivably be understood to speak for England. It is not about finding a voice for England (though it would at least be a form of recognition of England).

The previous Government seemed to be of the belief that the UK Government spoke for England. George Howarth, a Government minister back in 1998 stated that "The Government as a whole speak for England".

That statement was met with an incredulous one word reply from Eric Forth: "Really?". Not an unreasonable response given that the Government of the time was top heavy with Scottish MPs.

Clearly the Government as a whole does not speak for England, and nor can it speak for England, but it is interesting to note that The Memorandum of Understanding does categorically state that individual UK Ministers do represent the interests of England:

This Memorandum sets out the understanding of, on the one hand, the United Kingdom Government, and on the other, the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers, and the Northern Ireland Executive Committee (“the devolved administrations”) of the principles that will underlie relations between them. The UK Government represents the UK interest in matters which are not devolved in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. Policy responsibility for these non-devolved areas is within the exclusive responsibility of the relevant UK Ministers and Departments. It is recognised by these Ministers and Departments that, within the UK Government, the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are responsible for ensuring that the interests of those parts of the UK in non-devolved matters are properly represented and considered. Other UK Ministers and their departments represent the interests of England in all matters.

In other words, in the absence of devolution to England, and in the absence of a Secretary of State for England, it is up to individual Government ministers and their departments to 'speak for England'. In reality some of them can't even bring themselves to say the word England, let alone speak for it; and none of them even know what the interests of England are because the Government as a whole dare not ask us.

Redwood's question to Young follows from his blog article on Scottish and English Nationalism in which he says that David Cameron 'can take comfort from the fact that he can deny the English a vote on the Scottish question'. In my opinion the English should have no say at all in the Scottish question because that it is a matter for the Scottish people. However, if the Scottish people choose Independence or Devolution-Max, David Cameron will find himself unable to 'deny the English' any longer.

Redwood goes on to speculate upon what it is that English nationalists want:

The dream ticket for a modern English nationalist is a decision by Scotland to leave the UK, followed by the ending of membership of the EU because the member, the UK, no longer exists.

That may be true of English nationalists within the Conservative Party, but they are not what I would call modern English nationalists. I am an English nationalist because I believe that the nation (in this case the people of England) is entitled to its own state, and is entitled - is sovereign - to determine the basis of its government. Implicit in this is the understanding that ultimately it is the nation - the people - that are sovereign, not the state. And whilst I may find Scottish independence and an exit from the EU a democratic improvement on where we are now, that scenario is by no means a dream ticket. Do we want an English parliament on the basis that the other nations of the UK have all buggered off leaving the British parliament as an English parliament, full of the same cretins who previously took comfort in denying the English, but who now call themselves English? No, I want an English parliament to come about as a result of a popular vote in England, an affirmation of nationhood, democracy and popular sovereignty.

My dream ticket is for the people of England to demand their say and for the Government to listen to them. I don't think it's an unreasonable request. If that ever happens then I will feel that I have won, even if the people don't vote for an English parliament of some sort. If the British State were to submit itself to the judgement of the people of England we will have entered a new era, a post imperial era in which all the people of Britain, not just the Scots, are entitled, but not obliged, to be independent or in a Union of their choosing.

Who speaks for England? The people of England speak for England, but we have not spoken, yet.

The long awaited Commission into the West Lothian Question has finally been unveiled.

Unfortunately the terms of reference do not allow the Commission to consider the only solution to the West Lothian Question - an English parliament - as the Government had previously suggested it would, on two separate occassions.

Lord McNally (Minister of State, Justice; Liberal Democrat):

An English Parliament has been proposed in the past as a solution to the West Lothian question. It would be open to the commission, once established, to consider this as part of its review.

Lord McNally (Minister of State, Justice; Liberal Democrat)

As the noble Lord is aware the coalition programme for government committed the Government to establishing a commission to consider the West Lothian question. An English Parliament has been proposed in the past as a solution to the West Lothian question. It would be open to the commission, once established, to consider this as part of its review.

Anyone in England who expected fair dealing from the British Government ought now to support Scottish independence.

IPPR Press Release

Future of England in a devolved union can’t be decided by expert commission

79% of English voters want Scottish MPs barred from votes on English only laws

Ahead of the launch of the UK Government’s West Lothian Question Commission this week, new polling from the think tank IPPR and Cardiff and Edinburgh Universities, shows overwhelming public support within England for addressing this constitutional anomaly.

In a major new report on English Identity and the politics of the English Question, to be published by IPPR later this month, a survey asks more than 1,500 voters in England whether they agree or disagree that:

“Now that Scotland has its own parliament, Scottish MPs should not be allowed to vote in the House of Commons on laws that affect only England.”

More than half (53 per cent) of voters in England said they ‘strongly agree’, while a further 26 per cent said they ‘agree’. Just 12 per cent ‘disagree’. The report shows that the proportion who ‘strongly disagree’ has more than doubled since 2007.

The creation of a commission to investigate the West Lothian question recognizes the strength of public feeling in England on this issue however the report argues that relying on a commission of experts alone will prove insufficient for considering the future of English governance in a devolved union. The prospect of either Scottish independence or ‘devolution-max’ – either of which would have profound effects on the governance of England and the other nations of the United Kingdom, suggest the time has come for a much wider public debate about the future of the Union and the position of England within it.

Richard Wyn Jones, Professor of Politics at Cardiff University and co-author of the report said:

“While the Coalition is to be applauded for at least broaching this hugely important issue, neither the likely composition nor terms of reference of the new Commission suggest that this represents a serious attempt to finally answer the West Lothian Question.

"But if the intention is to kick the issue into the long grass, this is to reckon without an English electorate that appears increasingly restive and increasingly convinced that the anomalies created by the current devolution arrangements need to be addressed. As this evidence suggests, the English are now overwhelmingly persuaded that a system in which MPs from the devolved territories can vote on legislation that applies only to England is unfair.

"We underestimate the current mood of the English electorate at our peril. In the 1980s the perceived unfairness of a system which allowed left-leaning Scotland and Wales to be governed by a party without a mandate in those countries led to the generation of an unstoppable head of steam leading directly to the devolution reforms of the late 1990s. It is not hard to imagine how a different set of territorial anomalies could create a similar response in England. Indeed, it might already be happening.”

Guy Lodge, IPPR Associate Director, and co-author of the report, said:

“The English electorate strongly believes that the anomaly of the West Lothian question should be addressed. Reform in this area is notoriously difficult and so we welcome the establishment of the Commission to explore possible ways forward. However, as our forthcoming report will show, a narrow focus on the West Lothian question will not be sufficient to satisfy English public opinion. A strengthening of English identity, combined with growing interest in how England is governed, pose an important challenge for the centre-left in particular, which has so far failed to engage with these important developments in England. The time has come for a much wider public debate about what form a new constitutional settlement for England should take. Progressive politics needs to lead and not follow this debate.”

ENDS

The turnout for the Report Stage of Harriett Baldwin's Legislation (Territorial Extent) Bill was derisory, just 69 MPs including the Speaker and the Tellers. The MPs that voted No are listed below, an asterix is against the name of any MP who did not vote in any of the previous stages of the bill.

Four Lib Dems turned up for the first time to ensure this was defeated, along with sixteen Conservatives. There were several ministers among their number. Mark Harper, who has ministerial responsibility for Political and Constitutional Reform and who announced details of his West Lothian Commission the day before this vote, voted No when previously he had voted Aye.

NOES
David Anderson (Lab, England) *
Norman Baker (Lib Dem, England) *
Alan Beith (Lib Dem, England)
Richard Benyon (Lib Dem, England) *
Lyn Brown (Lab, England) *
Conor Burns (Con, England) *
Simon Burns (Con, England) *
Rosie Cooper (Lab, Scotland) *
Edward Davey (Lib Dems, England) *
Jonathan Djanogly (Con, England) *
Thomas Docherty (Lab, Scotland) *
Chris Grayling (Con, England) *
Tom Greatrex (Lab, Scotland) *
Philip Hammond (Con, England) *
Mark Harper (Con, England)
David Heath (Lib Dem, England) *
Charles Hendry (Con, England) *
Nick Herbert (Con, England) *
Mark Hoban (Con, England) *
Helen Jones (Lab, England) *
Gerald Kaufman (Lab, England)
Barbara Keeley (Lab, England) *
Mark Lazarowicz (Lab, Scotland) *
Tim Loughton (Con, England) *
Graeme Morrice (Lab, Scotland) *
Meg Munn (Lab, England) *
Stephen O'Brien (Con, England) *
Stephen Pound (Lab, England)
John Randall (Con, England) *
Andrew Robathan (Con, England) *
Hugh Robertson (Con, England) *
Alison Seabeck (Lab, England) *
Richard Shepherd (Con, England) *
Gavin Shuker (Lab, England) *
Hugo Swire (Con, England) *
John Thurso (Lib Dem, Scotland) *
Stephen Timms (Lab, England) *
Chuka Umunna (Lab, England) *
Theresa Villiers (Con, England) *
John Woodcock (Lab, England) *

We can only guess at what political maneuverings go on in the formerly smokey corridors of power, but it looks to me as if the Government might have whipped up a few bodies to ensure that this seemingly innocuous bill bubbled under. The bill did not seek to prevent non-English MPs voting on English-only legislation, it merely sought to clarify the territorial extent of bills (or clauses within bills) and the financial implications of that bill for the individual nations of the UK. It was an attempt at increasing transparency, it is a change that is necessary before any system of English Votes on English Laws could be introduced, as Harriett Baldwin mentioned during the debate:

In 2009, the Justice Committee prepared a report called, “Devolution: A Decade On.” In its conclusions and recommendations, it said:

“The question of whether England-only legislation can be more clearly demarcated from other legislation has to be resolved if any scheme of English votes for English laws is to work.”

Reading through the Hansard transcript of the debate just serves to highlight the fact that the West Lothian Question cannot be resolved for so long as Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are funded via the Barnett Formula. And given that the Commission into the West Lothian Question will not address the Barnett Formula, and given the Government has said that it will not address the Barnett Formula until "stabilisation of the public finances has been achieved", I have to conclude that the West Lothian Commission is a waste of time, little more than a charade. Given its limited scope the best that it could recommend is Malcolm Rifkind's double majority proposal, which is precisely what I predict it will do.

As was suggested in the Scotsman, it's probably best for politicians to stop asking the question.

There is an answer to the WLQ, two in fact: Scottish independence, backed by the SNP, or a federal UK, supported by the Lib Dems. As neither option is favoured by a majority of MPs, maybe they need to stop asking the question until they can accept the answer.

Unfortunately though they cannot because even Guardian readers now support the political exiling of Scottish, Welsh and Northen Irish MPs.

A few odds and ends relating to my previous post.

Sadly Harriett Baldwin's private members bill was defeated. Having been poorly attended throughout its passage through Parliament, a (comparatively) whopping 64 MPs decided to turn up at report stage. It will be interesting to see who they were and how they voted. The Democracy Live coverage will be available here.

You can read Paul Nuttall's policy proposal here. I expect this to formally become UKIP policy today.

And finally, this is Mark Harper's written statement on the Government's commission into the West Lothian Question:

The coalition programme for government set out our commitment to “establish a commission to consider the ‘West Lothian question’”.
I can now give the House more details on how that commission is to proceed.
The Government are clear that the commission’s primary task should be to examine how this House and Parliament as a whole can deal most effectively with business that affects England wholly or primarily, when at the same time similar matters in some or all of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are lawfully and democratically the responsibility of the separate Parliament or Assemblies. The commission will not examine financing, which is being dealt with separately through various processes led by Treasury Ministers, nor does it need to look at the balance of parliamentary representation, given that Parliament addressed historic imbalances in representation between the constituent nations of the United Kingdom in legislation earlier this year.
Given the commission’s focus on parliamentary business and procedure, the Government believe that the commission should be comprised of a small group of independent, non-partisan experts with constitutional, legal and parliamentary expertise. We will also wish to consult with Mr Speaker and other parliamentary authorities on how the commission can best address this. We will also ensure that there is a full opportunity for the parties to have their say following the completion of the commission’s work.
We will bring forward formal proposals, including the terms of reference for the commission, after the conclusion of this short process of consultation and further deliberation. I expect that this will be in the weeks after the House returns in October.

Tomorrow (Friday) Harriett Baldwin's Legislation (Territorial Extent) Bill is back in Parliament. This is Mark D’Arcy's take on it:

Friday is private members bill day in the Commons, and topping the bill is the Report Stage debate on the Conservative backbencher Harriet Baldwin’s Legislation (Territorial Extent) Bill. This takes a stab at giving a partial answer to the West Lothian Question by requiring that in future all bills put before Parliament should contain a clear statement of how they affect each of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland – including knock-on financial implications. She hopes that this would allow it to become accepted practice that Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs would not vote on England-only Bills. The Government attitude is interesting, to put it mildly. The Coalition Agreement includes a promise to set up a commission to look at the West Lothian Question (the issue of MPs from devolved parts of the UK being able to vote on English issues, when English MPs can’t vote on the same issues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) but that commission has yet to be set up. Ministers clearly don’t want the Baldwin bill, and she can expect pressure to withdraw it.

Having, somewhat to her own surprise, piloted the Bill through the the most perilous stage of the parliamentary life-cycle, the Second Reading debate, and through Committee where it was unamended, (although that may owe something to the broken leg suffered by Labour constitutional affairs spokesman Chris Bryant) Harriet Baldwin can now hope to send it off to the Lords. The main way of preventing this would be for opponents to put down a deluge of amendments at Report Stage – and talk out the available debating time. We shall see.

How unfortuante that Chris Bryant had a broken leg and couldn't interfere in English business, as is his way. Would it be churlish to hope that he breaks something else on his way to Parliament tomorrow?

Coincidence or cynical political maneuvering?

Naturally, given that Harriett's private members bill stands a chance of of making it through report stage and on into the Lords, the Government has today decided to announce its plans for a Commission into the West Lothian Question. Most probably with the hope of persuading Harriett to drop her bill, as noted by the BBC:

Ministers would prefer Conservative backbencher Harriett Baldwin's Legislation (Territorial Extent) Bill 2010-11 to be withdrawn and the commission left to do its work.

In fact, Mark Harper, the Minister in charge of setting up the Commission into the West Lothian Question, was last seen voting against Harriett Baldwin's bill. Hopefully Harriett will not withdraw her bill. Nadhim Zahawi made that mistake when, under pressure from the Government, he was persuaded to withdraw his St George's Day and St David's Day Bill, opening up the field for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport consultation on bank holidays. Only to discover, months later, that a St George's Day holiday was being ruled out on the blog of John Penrose at the DCMS:

A number of people in the industry suggested we give some thought to shifting the May Day bank holiday to either the autumn half-term, or possibly to become a St. George’s Day holiday in England with equivalent national days off for the other home nations.

Well, we haven’t quite completed the detailed analysis of what people said they wanted, but one thing has been coming through loud and clear. And that is the not-at-all surprising news that a number of people rather liked the idea of a new bank holiday on one or other of the suggested days but that, no, they didn’t want to lose the May Day holiday as part of the deal. An extra day off for everyone every year would clearly go down well, it seems. I think I speak on behalf of the Government when I offer the response "nice try" to that one. We’re all about reducing the deficit and growing the economy at the moment, so the suggestion we write off an additional 20 million or so working days each year is unlikely to send a shiver of delight up the Treasury’s spine, I suspect.

So England can't have a national holiday on St George's Day because we need to reduce the UK debt, and we can't have a fair and transparent funding formula because we need to reduce the UK debt. Hmmm...Any further dithering on the English Question and the Tories may find that UKIP have stolen their clothes. Tomorrow, in Eastbourne, the UKIP NEC discuss a policy proposal from their deputy leader which aims to change UKIP policy to support for the establishment of an English parliament, following private polling by the party that shows that such a policy would be popular with the voters. The Tories may regard themselves as the natural party of England, but by their actions they show that they are not. It's time for someone to step into that void.

UPDATE

Just noticed this on Mark D’Arcy's blog:

Harriett Baldwin WILL press ahead with her bill. She says the Government needs to give much more detail about its Commission. And the Speaker has only selected four of the Labour amendments for discussion at the Report Stage of her Bill - which will make any attempt to talk out the available debating time rather harder, particularly because the selected amendments are all on quite narrow points.

Good decision, Harriett.

Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North, Conservative):

Which is the more pressing issue: the West Lothian question or House of Lords reform?

Nick Clegg:

I do not think that it is an either/or choice. As the hon. Lady knows, there is a commitment in the coalition agreement to establish a commission to look into the West Lothian question, but I do not think that that precludes the Joint Committee looking at proposals for reform of the House of Lords at the same time.

Ian Lucas (Wrexham, Labour):

Do the Government’s proposals for the House of Lords include excluding peers not from England on voting on matters solely related to England?

Nick Clegg:

We have not addressed that in the White Paper. If people want to discuss it in the Joint Committee, they are free to do so.

Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire, Conservative):

On 5 April the Deputy Prime Minister said there was “a need to ensure” that reform of the other place did not “overlap” with the establishment of the West Lothian commission. Given that reform of the other place may take some time, can the Deputy Prime Minister reassure us that the West Lothian commission will be in place by the time of the Report stage and Third Reading of my private Member’s Bill on 9 September?

Nick Clegg:

I can confirm that the commission that will look into the West Lothian question will be established this year.

If Clegg thought that both issues were equally important, then surely the Committee on the West Lothian Question would already be established (as it was supposed to be) and could inform the debate over the Lords. I can see no possible reason for delaying the Committee on the West Lothian Question other than Nick Clegg believing it to be unimportant or that it might preclude the desired outcome of his Lords Reform White Paper.

Not content with the brush off he received in response to his earlier question, Lord Stoddart has again raised the subject of an English parliament:

Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Independent Labour)

To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Statement by Lord Wallace of Tankerness on 7 March (WS 145) on the Welsh referendum, whether they will bring forward legislation enabling the English to decide through a referendum whether they are in favour of establishing an English Parliament.

Lord McNally (Minister of State, Justice; Liberal Democrat)

As the noble Lord is aware the coalition programme for government committed the Government to establishing a commission to consider the West Lothian question. An English Parliament has been proposed in the past as a solution to the West Lothian question. It would be open to the commission, once established, to consider this as part of its review.

(Hat-tip: Kev)

According to the Number 10 website work has started on the Commission into the West Lothian Question, yet I still don't have answers to some very basic questions:

• Will the Commission be independent; to whom will it be answerable?
• Will the Commission be considering the option of scrapping the Barnett Formula, and the option of establishing an English parliament?
• Who will be the Chair and how will the Committee members be chosen?
• How much will the Commission cost?
• Will it be a closed shop or can an ordinary member of the public, such as myself, get involved?

What are you doing Mark Harper, how on earth can it take you such a long time to set up a commission? In December 2010 I was told that there would be an announcement on the West Lothian Commission in the New Year. So where is it? Have you decided to leave England hanging until the elections to the Scottish Parliament are over and the Scotland Bill is passed?

Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Independent Labour):

To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord McNally on 24 January (WA 93-4), whether the commission to consider the West Lothian question will examine proposals for a referendum in England to test support for an English Parliament.

Lord McNally (Minister of State, Justice; Liberal Democrat):

An English Parliament has been proposed in the past as a solution to the West Lothian question. It would be open to the commission, once established, to consider this as part of its review.

Start preparing your evidence in support of an EP.