Letter to Mark Harper (West Lothian Commission)

Letter to Mark Harper MP (Minister for Political and Constitutional Reform).

Dear Mr Harper,

Thank you for your recent letter, dated 11th October 2010 (Ref: NO10306334), which was forwarded to me by my MP, Norman Baker. You go some way to reassuring me that the forthcoming Commission on the West Lothian Question is not an attempt to kick the issue into the long-grass.

However, a Parliamentary solution to the West Lothian Question is impossible in the short-term because the Government has stated that the Barnett Formula is untouchable until "stabilisation of the public finances" has been achieved. Since the Barnett Formula allocates money to the devolved nations as a proportion of what is spent in England, practically every English bill has ramifications for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and every MP from those countries therefore has an obligation to their constituents to have their say on English legislation. Under the circumstances I cannot see how you can do anything other than delay answering the West Lothian Question until such time that you have reformed the discredited Barnett Formula. In order to circumvent the Barnett Formula problem I have little doubt that you will toy with the 'double majority' solution, whereby 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.

It would be foolhardy to even toy with a solution that introduced a nationalist imperative to the Union parliament.

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 – to vote in the national interests of England - would be to undermine the working of Parliament and effective government. For MPs in the UK Parliament, elected on a UK manifesto, the national interest should be the national interest of the United Kingdom. Given the nature of Parliament, which is essentially an electoral college that selects the UK Government, the plurality should properly be expected to put the interests of the UK Government above those of England - that is their job as UK MPs.

I have a number of questions concerning the Commission that I would appreciate an answer to, please.

• 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?

The recent Calman Commission invited submissions from the public, and like the Kilbrandon Commission it held public consultations. I very much hope that you are planning to follow their example. I put myself at the disposal of the Commission and look forward to being called to give evidence. My credentials are impeccable: I'm English and because I'm not a politician I will put the interests of England and Democracy before the interests of Party and Parliament.

Yours,