Cameron Leaning Towards the East Lothian Answer?

David Cameron was questioned on the West Lothian Question yesterday, and true to form the eel in a suit slithered around the question:

Asked about the "West Lothian question", Cameron says the government is holding a review. The Tories went into the election proposing a convention that would stop Scottish MPs voting on England-only laws. Cameron says he does not want to create a system where there are two types of MPs. That's why he favours the establishment of a convention, rather than a more rigid system. But he will wait for the outcome of the review, he says.

He may be leaning towards asking non-English members to observe a self-denying ordinance on English legislation, or perhaps he prefers Malcolm Rifkind's 'elegant' East Lothian Answer.

I had a bit of a set-to with Malcolm Rifkind over his solution, you can read that exchange here. What Rifkind now proposes for England is far less than he once proposed for his native Scotland.

In 1975 Rifkind chaired a Scottish Devolution Policy group to determine how the Conservative Party should respond to the Labour Government's White Paper on Scottish devolution. To cut a long story short, Rifkind decided to counter demands for a bespoke Scottish Parliament and Executive by recommending a system by which an autonomous Scottish Assembly operated as a chamber within the Westminster system.

It is suggested that the Conservative's should propose an Assembly that would be integrated into the work of Westminster and will exercise its functions as part of the British Government.

The executive should remain the Secretary of State for Scotland responsible to Parliament. 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. Given the full consideration which would have been given by them, it would be hoped that passage through the Lords would involve minimal delay.

If the Assembly declined to give a Second Reading, the Government could either amend to meet the Assembly's objections or withdraw the Bill. In some cases it would be possible to foresee Assembly opposition and consideration could be given to the possibility of United Kingdom legislation that would be solely considered by Parliament. In extreme cases, if the Assembly was being purely and deliberately obstructive, Parliament would, of course, have the legal right to by-pass the Assembly on purely Scottish bills.

Members of the assembly should also have the power to initiate their own legislation. Once it has completed its Stages in the Assembly it would go to Parliament which would have identical powers as with government legislation. The consideration of Scottish legislation in the Assembly should be led by the Secretary of State and his junior Ministers who should have the right to be present and speak during the proceedings of the Assembly. In addition, there should be no objection to the appointment of junior Ministers, including a Minister of State, from the ranks of the Assembly. At present, for example, the Solicitor-General for Scotland is not in either House of Parliament and, accordingly, no new principle would be invoked.

The Assembly should also have the power to summon Scottish Ministers before it or before a Select Committee with power to examine and scrutinise the actions of the Scottish Office.

The above gives you an idea of how an English Grand Committee might operate within the Westminster system. But it also exposes the inadequacy of Rifkind and Clarke's present plans for England. Any future English Grand Committee ought, at the very least, to be able to call UK Government ministers to account; it should have power to scrutinise the actions of the UK Parliament, and; it should contain at least one junior minister from each department of state.