Electing the House of Lords

In May 2005 I wrote to Oliver Heald MP, the then Shadow Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, to suggest that the Conservative policy of English Votes on English Laws was a crock of shit that hadn't been thought through.

Many thanks for your message.

It is not intended that there should be an "English Government". The proposal is that MPs elected for the English Constituencies should decide English domestic matters, in the way that the Scottish Parliament is able to decide such matters for Scotland.

Internal Party matters such as Whipping arrangements, would continue to be dealt with by the political Parties. These proposals would not affect the position of the House of Lords, since it does not have a geographical basis to it.

Many thanks for writing.

Best wishes,

Oliver Heald MP
Shadow Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs

Having now had time to think it through, the Conservatives have decided against English Votes on English Laws in favour of a system in which non-English MPs continue to vote on English Laws. At least that is what we're told. So MPs elected in England won't operate in the same "way that the Scottish Parliament is able to decide such matters for Scotland".

That part was pretty much stock-in-trade stuff from a Tory MP of the time, none of whom had the faintest idea how English Votes on English Laws would work in practice. But what interested me was the part about the West lothian Question not applying to the House of Lords.

Six months earlier Robin Cook told Holyrood's European and external relations committee that his plans for MSPs to sit in the House of Lords were scuppered by opposition from English MPs.

...he said the idea had been fiercely opposed by Westminster colleagues because they did not think devolved administrations represented Britain.

"When I was leader of the House and trying, without ultimate success, to get a more democratic second chamber, I personally was quite keen on the idea that a portion should consist of people sent there by the devolved bodies," Mr Cook told Holyrood?s European and external relations committee.

"I ran into great difficulties," he said. "There was resistance in Westminster because devolution only covered a small part of the UK - quite a significant part, covering some 30 per cent, but a minority nonetheless."

English MPs were correct to scupper Cook's plans, the devolved administrations represent their respective nations, they do not represent Britain. By the same token the Westminster Parliament, upper and lower, does not represent England. It's a question of mandate. Having said that it seems reasonable to me that despite the fact that Westminster is not an English parliament, the English should be free from democratically unaccountable foreigners voting on their laws - which is the logic behind English Votes on English Laws.

Incredibly Robin Cook didn't feel it necessary to comment upon the fact that the Lords does not scrutinise legislation passed by the Scottish parliament. The fact that Scottish Lords already sit in judgement over English only legislation, after it has been voted on by Scottish MPs, wasn't enough for Cook. He also wanted Members of the Scottish Parliament, elected by Scots on a mandate for Scotland, sitting in the Lords scrutinising English matters.

The situation that we're faced with now isn't quite so perverse as that envisaged by Robin Cook. However, Labour's plans for a fully elected Lords, elected on a regional basis by proportional representation, will mean that the 'Senate' will be elected on a territorial basis and therefore will be subject to the West Lothian Question, which will ask why 'senators' elected in Scotland should vote on English legislation. It will be interesting to see whether any English MPs raise this matter when Labour reveal their plans.

See: Upper West Lothian Question