Dominic Grieve: Shadow Minister of Justice

David Cameron's reshuffle has moved Dominic Grieve from Shadow Home Secretary to shadow Jack Straw at Justice, replacing Nick Herbert. For English nationalists it's an interesting appointment because, unlike Herbert, Grieve has form on the English Question, it was the subject of his maiden speech in May 1997.

And in January 1998 it sounded for all the world as if he lamented the negation of England:

Let us forget for a moment about the West Lothian question; the real question centres round the fact that a new United Kingdom is being created, yet there has been no consultation with the people of England....Instead we are offered vague ideas about constitutional reform in England, no test of whose acceptability has ever been seriously put forward or even canvassed.

I wonder whether Grieve will advocate a consultation of the English people, a national conversation that not only addresses the West Lothian Question but also the wider English Question relating to the governance of England. Or will he advocate a technical solution to the WLQ along the lines advocated by Ken Clarke and Malcolm Rifkind, addressing only the voting privileges of Scottish MPs?

The English, according to Grieve, have lost out on political governance, and damage to English national identity must be addressed...restoring a sense of purposeful nationhood in England. It would seem incredible to me if he were to suggest that this national rebirth can be achieved, solely, by preventing Scottish MPs voting at Report Stage.

The English have also lost out on political governance. The British state in its old constitutional form was the English state adapted to encompass the diversity of new participants. But that is a different thing to what we now have after devolution. There is a widespread perception that England is now disadvantaged and disempowered by new national institutions that give special privileges to all except the English. It is this as much as the narrower West Lothian question that produces problems. Lord Irvine argued that these would go away if we stopped thinking about them. But you can’t stop people thinking...

Suppression of and damage to English national identity must be addressed. It is a question of restoring balance to the Union, not encouraging a English separatist agenda. Given Devolution we must deal speedily with the West Lothian question and provide England with better control of its affairs restoring a sense of purposeful nationhood in England.

Grieve has also stated that it is an untenable argument to say that England does not need separate representation:

During the debate on Scottish devolution, we have spoken much about the Scottish sense of identity. We have also spoken about the Welsh sense of identity, but, as I have listened to the debates and to the justified sentiments, which I have appreciated and understood, about a Scottish sense of nationhood, it has become apparent that we in England have been reduced to a sort of blob. I am no longer apparently to be the Member of Parliament representing an English constituency and a constituent part of the United Kingdom; I am to represent a left-over area that lacks its own identity and does not need any sort of separate representation for itself. That is a totally untenable argument.

Grieve's thoughts on the notion of popular sovereignty will be of interest to at least one reader of this blog. I'm guessing that popular solutions to constitutional questions are not his thing.