Power 2010: Deliberative Poll a Guide to Reforms

Power2010's Guide to Reforms document (pdf) reveals that the three most popular reforms are as follows:

• Hold a referendum on establishing an English Parliament suggested by 410 people
• Introduce a more proportional voting system for elections suggested by 280 people
• Hold a referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union suggested by 123 people

Ideas such as these are, this weekend, being deliberated upon by 200 citizens from across the UK selected by YouGov to be representative of the population as a whole. In its Guide to Reforms Power2010 has helpfully surmised the arguments for and against an English parliament for the benefit of the 200 random individuals taking part.

Arguments in favour

1. It ends the unfairness of the current system in which non-English MPs vote on issues that affect only England with no equivalent right for English MPs.
2. It gives England a political voice at the national level, which at the moment it lacks, and would contribute to a renewal of English national identity.
3. The creation of an English Parliament would provide an opportunity to completely re-think how politics should work, in particular the powers of the central parliament and its relationship to the people.

Issues / arguments against

1. The UK Parliament is already dominated by English MPs, who make up over 80% of members, so the influence of Northern Irish, Scottish and Welsh MPs is marginal as it is.
2. The 83% of the UK population in England would dominate any federal union. This might lead the smaller nations of the UK to feel that their concerns aren’t represented at a federal level generating resentment and potentially leading to the break up of the UK.
3. Devolving power from a body that represents 60 million people to a body that represents 51 million people would do very little to bring power closer to the people.
4. It could potentially mean creating another Parliament building with a whole new set of politicians. This would impose an added cost on the taxpayer

I make that four arguments Against and only three arguments For. Let's look at the arguments against.

• The UK Parliament is already dominated by English MPs, who make up over 80% of members, so the influence of Northern Irish, Scottish and Welsh MPs is marginal as it is.

The influence of Scottish MPs such as Gordon Brown is anything but marginal.

Some people argue that English MPs can represent the interests of England within the UK Parliament, and others, like George Howarth, go further to argue that "The Government as a whole speak for England". In reality the House of Commons splits along party lines, not along national lines.

A Union parliament should not encourage 'English MPs' - who are actually British MPs who happen to be elected in England - to be nationalistic and act in England's interest. The UK Government, and the electoral college that sustains it, should put the interests of the UK above the interests of any of the constituent nations.

Neither the Union parliament, nor the UK Government, can or should be encouraged to 'speak for England'. Only a parliament and government elected by, and accountable solely to, the English people can speak for England.

• The 83% of the UK population in England would dominate any federal union. This might lead the smaller nations of the UK to feel that their concerns aren’t represented at a federal level generating resentment and potentially leading to the break up of the UK.

The 83% of the UK population that lives in England dominates under any system. There is less chance of non-English concerns being heard under the present system in which the Union parliament doubles as the English parliament and concerns itself with predominately English domestic matters. Federalism separates English domestic matters from pan-UK matters and allows the smaller nations of the UK equal ownership of British institutions of governance.

• Devolving power from a body that represents 60 million people to a body that represents 51 million people would do very little to bring power closer to the people.

A parliament is about national governance and a restoration of democracy more than it is about devolution. An English parliament does not prevent power from being devolved within England, in fact an English parliament may even incorporate a committee system that brings local politicians and civic leaders into parliament (something that Westminster MPs are wary of now because they feel it undermines their parliamentary privilege and absolute authority).

• It could potentially mean creating another Parliament building with a whole new set of politicians. This would impose an added cost on the taxpayer.

It would create a new layer of politicians but not necessarily a new parliament building. Savings could be made by abolishing regionalism and reducing the number of UK politicians, and possibly abolishing the House of Lords in favour of a federal parliament. My personal preference is for a bicameral English parliament of about 400 members in each house in its traditional home at Westminster. A greatly reduced UK parliament and government would be moved to a location equidistant between the four national capitals, somewhere modest like Liverpool Town Hall.

Of course, it hardly needs to be said that the cost of setting up an English parliament and government is, on a per capita basis, far less than the cost of setting up the equivalents in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

My arguments for an English parliament are as follows:

National Identity - An English parliament could help create a more inclusive, civic, sense of English identity and national purpose.

Equity - If an English parliament is what the people want, then an English parliament is what the people should get + a referendum extends to England the principle of popular sovereignty.

Parliamentary Time - An English parliament would allow for proper parliamentary time to be allotted for the debate of English matters and scrutiny of English legislation (and also free up time in the British Parliament for proper scrutiny - which is something lacking now).

Democratic Accountability - An English Parliament would put to bed the infamous West Lothian Question.

Ministerial Accountability - An English parliament would ensure that ministers were directly politically accountable to the nation that their department serves.

Executive Accountability - An English Parliament would ensure that legislation affecting England was proposed and implemented by MPs accountable to the English electorate.

Prime Ministerial Accountability - An English parliament would give England political leadership.

Financial Transparency - An English parliament would end the inequity of the Barnett Formula.

International Affairs - An English parliament would give England political representation in the international arena.

Internal Governance - An English parliament would spell an end to the unwanted regionalism imposed upon England by the British Government and allow England to organise its own internal governance.

Preserving Britain - Counter intuitively an English parliament will help preserve the union because it gives Scotland and Wales equal ownership of British institutions instead of the continual conflation of "English" and "British".

No English Votes on English Laws - An English Parliament is the only viable and achievable alternative to the disaster waiting to happen that is the Conservative's solution to the West Lothian Question.

Other Constitutional Reforms - An English Parliament provides an opportunity to usher in a new electoral system and a more consensual politics. The debate over what to do with the House of Lords could include a role in scrutinising the national parliaments or some other federal role, it could even become the British parliament.