The West Lothian Question on Horseback

The West Lothian Question raised its head during the Lords debate on the Queen's Speech, in regard to the free vote on the Hunting Act.

Unfortunately, the Prime Minister, Mr Cameron, and everyone in this country who would like to see an end to the hunting ban are all too likely to be stymied by what is the complete reverse of fairness. Realistically, I see no problem from Northern Ireland. However, honourable Members representing Scottish constituencies are a different matter. The Scots, like the Northern Irish, have unfettered power to make their own laws for hunting on their own territory, but the English and Welsh are denied that right. Is that really fair? Surely it is not, as most of the electorate in Scotland and Northern Ireland would almost certainly agree. In the absence of long-overdue self-government for the English on purely domestic matters-that need not cost money, as there would be no need for hugely expensive Assembly buildings-one fears that repeal of the Hunting Act is unlikely in this Parliament unless all MPs representing Scottish and Northern Ireland constituencies were involuntarily to abstain in any Division on a hunting Bill, which I suspect is asking for the moon. Lord Monson, 2nd June 2010

A case of the undemocratic (Scottish MPs) in defence of the inedible against the unspeakable?

(hat-tip @stgeorgeiscross)

UPDATE

Harriett Baldwin's Legislation (Territorial Extent) Bill is an attempt to address the West Lothian Question.

Trackback URL for this post:

http://www.toque.co.uk/trackback/1613
Share this

So she is aiming for a

So she is aiming for a set-piece/show-piece debate on the West Lothian question. Isn't there a danger that this can be shot down quite easily as the territorial extent of legislation is identified as a matter of course. It seems a bit a waste of a private member's bill though I suppose Evan Harris's bill on the succession/Catholic bar did get some press attention.

Toque's picture

It does seem a bit of a waste

It does seem a bit of a waste of Parliamentary time (although as a member of the public I'm all for Parliament discussing the English Question) but I guess it depends on what their ulterior motive is (see my comment on EPO). Maybe it's an attempt to put English Votes on English Laws back on the agenda in spite of Nick Clegg.

Maybe the Countryside Alliance have put them up to it.

Yes, re your point on EPO,

Yes, re your point on EPO, even in devolved matters such as health and education we still get 'England and Wales' clauses occasionally. So if something applies to England and Wales the bill would introduce a convention of setting out an English clause and then an identical Welsh clause, and yes, that’s obviously a necessary precursor to English Votes on English Laws. (But of course England/Wales clauses aren't really the problem!)

I’m not quite sure what Harriet Baldwin’s comments on Conservative Home regarding Standing Orders mean:

“The best way to tackle the question is actually by a change to Standing Orders. ...The relevant change in Standing Orders should then be clear for each piece of legislation.”

Is she suggesting EVoEL can be achieved via Standing Orders?

Toque's picture

Yes. I think she's saying

Yes. I think she's saying that it will be a procedural change rather than a constitutional change that will resolve the WLQ.

Private members bills aren't really the orthodox method for instituting constitutional change, so it will be changes to internal Parliamentary procedures (Standing Orders) that will prevent Scots from voting on English and Welsh business.

Right, I think I get it! A

Right, I think I get it! A bill plus a challenge to the Government to change standing orders. I was puzzled by the apparently limited nature of the bill.

Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer