Thank you for writing to me regarding the vote on regional select committees that was defeated in Parliament last Wednesday so narrowly. It was very disappointing to be beaten so narrowly but I was encouraged that it was such a close vote against a Labour party that holds such a large majority.
Concerning the West Lothian question, I firmly believe that it is wrong that many MPs are in the position of legislating for those to whom they are not accountable, while being unable to legislate for those to whom they are accountable. This is an issue that Labour has, irresponsibly and perhaps not without self-interest, been determined to avoid. In contrast, the Conservatives have been committed to addressing it ever since devolution was established in 1999. We have said that leaving the West Lothian Question unanswered not only stood in the way of fully accountable and fair government for England but also put at risk the Union that exists between, and gives considerable benefit to, all the constituent countries of the UK.
It is for these reasons that the Conservative Party asked its Democracy Taskforce to devise an answer to the West Lothian Question. The Taskforce, chaired by the Rt. Hon. Kenneth Clarke MP, has now published its report. The report proposes restricting to English MPs alone, the power to vote in the stages of the legislative process in the House of Commons where the detail of the England-only Bills is worked out. This would protect England from having measures that a majority of English MPs found unacceptable being imposed upon it as a consequence of non-English votes. It is cases where this has happened that have created the resentment of devolution that exists in England. The Taskforce’s proposed solution would retain the ability of the whole House of Commons to vote on the final stages of the Bill (when its detail has already been decided), in order to give the UK Government the choice of accepting any amendments made by the English MPs alone or having the Bill voted down and lost. This was recommended to ensure that we can have a functioning Government, without intolerable political instability.
I believe the Taskforce has presented a thoughtful and persuasive answer to the West Lothian Question. One which, crucially, seeks to ensure that legislation affecting England alone should have the consent of of England’s representatives. The publication of the Taskforce report shows that the Conservatives are setting the agenda on this issue. The Shadow Cabinet is now examining the report as part of its consideration of the precise formulation of the answer to the West Lothian Question that we are committed to giving in our next manifesto.
Many thanks for your recent further email regarding the West Lothian question. I can certainly understand your concern on this issue, and I am grateful for your kind words about my work as a constituency MP. It is an honour to serve the local community.
You refer to proposals placed before the Party by Ken Clarke’s democracy task force. At present, I should emphasise that these remain nothing more than proposals, and do not reflect a policy commitment from the Conservatives. I have taken up this matter with colleagues, who have informed me that we will set out our intentions firmly in our Manifesto for the next election.
I would like to assure you, however, that the issue as a whole is one that the Party takes extremely seriously; Nick Herbert, the Shadow Justice Secretary, has acknowledged that, if left unanswered, the West Lothian question is liable to provoke frustration in England, highlighting as it does problems implicit in the exercise of power without accountability.
Many thanks again for taking the time to write to me on this issue. As you know, I strive to make a commitment to all of my constituents, whether they feel able to agree with my political persuasions or otherwise, so please do let me know if you feel I may be able to help further with this, or any other matter.
Thank you for your email of 17 August to Ben Bradshaw, Regional Minister for the South West regarding the polling evidence concerning the introduction of regional ministers. I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Government Office Network as the part of Government responsible for supporting Regional Ministers and I am sorry for the delay in responding to you.
Government has not conducted and is not aware of any polling concerning the introduction of Regional Ministers. The Prime Minister appointed a Minister for each of the nine English regions in June last year in order to strengthen the regions’ sense of strategic direction and links with central Government. The Governance of Britain Green Paper, published in July 2007, elaborated on this role, suggesting Regional Ministers’ key functions were to (i) act as an advocate and representative of central Government in the regions, ensuring that Government policy takes account of the differing needs of the nine English regions; and (ii) promote national policies regionally, making central government more visible in the regions and helping to raise its profile and generate awareness of the political system.
Having now been in post for one year, Regional Ministers’ responsibilities have developed further and are now focussed around the following three roles:
- Regional Leaders: working with members, officials and colleagues from all sectors to get beneath the headlines and into the detail of the problems facing the region – and to look for the solutions;
- Government Champions: taking part in key regional events to promote national policies and using these events also to explore how the region can draw on its experience to offer solutions back to Whitehall departments; and
- Regional Champions: working with colleagues within Whitehall to champion the needs of the region and to ensure that the region’s voice is heard – and to promote the region’s successes.
Regional Ministers also take the lead in Parliamentary debates focused on issued particular to their region. As stated in our response to the Modernisation Committee’s report into regional accountability, the Government believes that this role should be expanded and that Regional Ministers should take questions in Parliament on their activities to fulfill the roles outlined above. We expect these proposals to be debated later in the autumn, with the resulting arrangements likely to be implemented by the end of the year.
I hope this helps provide futher information for the introduction of Regional Ministers and the work they undertake.
Yours sincerely
Kris MacNaughton
Regional Coordination Unit Government Office Network
Thank you for your letter dated 14th June to Jonathan Shaw MP about his role as Minister for the South East, regional accountability and the Barnett Formula. He has asked me to reply on his behalf, as the Government Office for the South East (GOSE) supports him in his role. I am sorry for the delay in replying.
The Government has a long standing commitment to devolved decision making. Regional Ministers were appointed as part of a package of measures aimed at improving public services through taking decisions at the right spatial level.
Plans are currently being developed for the introduction of regional accountability arrangements that will give Members of Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise Regional Ministers and the Government’s regional policy, including the work of regional bodies. The House of Commons Modernisation Select Committee is currently considering how best to take this forward and a decision is expected soon.
The role of Regional Ministers is to demonstrate leadership and influence as advocates for the region and as representative of central government in the regions. This complements the executive responsibilities of Departmental Ministers by focusing on joined up local delivery.
The work of Regional Ministers is already making a difference. For example, Jonathan Shaw has played an important role in leading the implementation of the Sub-National Review of Economic Development and Regeneration and in hosting regional consultations on the Government’s Draft Legislative Programme. He is also taking a particular interest in issues relating to skills and employability and to housing. More information about Jonathan Shaw’s role as Minister for the South East is available on our website:
You also mentioned the allocation of government funding to different parts of the UK. Under the Barnett Formula, revenues are pooled centrally and funding is allocated to UK Government departments according to the Government’s judgement of relative needs and priorities. The Government is investing in the South East; in 2007-08, total identifiable expenditure on services in the South East was £53,999,000,000. On transport, the Government is continuing to invest in the South East. The transport contribution to the Regional Funding Allocations for the South East (£141 million in 2007-08) is the largest of any region, and the South East will benefit from investment in Crossrail and the Olympics. The Barnett Formula us a long standing and stable basis for allocating changes in spending to the devolved administrations and the Government has no plans to change the formula.
I don’t know about you, but I am getting a bit fed up with those who keep telling me we need to have an extra public holiday centred around St George’s Day. Don’t get me wrong, I am all for an extra public holiday, but I am afraid I do not consider myself English. I consider myself British and I believe the extra public holiday should be on a day that is close to all of us British people, not one of its regional parts.
So, I find myself in agreement with George Galloway MP, when he says Battle of Britain Day in September would be the ideal candidate. It is an important date in our history and September can still offer some reasonable weather on which to have a public holiday. Unfortunately English nationalism is on the rise and although 56% of the population still favour being in the UK, 34% believes we should separate into 4 different countries, which I believe would be a disaster. Fuelled by Margaret Thatcher who did her level best to destroy all three of them. For the Welsh, Scottish and Irish, a national identity exists, but what identity exists in England?
I feel as a born and bred Lancastrian, that I have more in common with the Scots and Welsh than I do with Southern England. For me, the English Parliament would be an object disaster for the North of England, as it would be dominated by London and the South East and we would be treated like second-class citizens. No, keep the England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland for the sports field; but in the world that really matters, let’s stick to the United Kingdom and end all of this nationalism nonsense. I am proud to be British, so let’s have a public holiday on a day relevant to Britain. What do you think?
Thank you for writing to me about EDM266 regarding the Scottish Claim of Right and its signing by the Prime Minister in 1998.
The Campaign for a Scottish Assembly produced a report in 1988, A Claim of Right for Scotland, which recommended the establishment of a convention to draw up a blueprint for a Scottish assembly or parliamentary body.
The Claim of Right states that the signatories declare and pledge that in all their actions and deliberations the interests of the Scottish people shall be paramount. However, this was in the context of the pursuit of devolution and the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs. That is why I will not be signing this EDM.
It is unfortunate that Gordon Brown does not recognise the sovereign right of the people to decide who their Prime Minister should be. He lacks a democratic mandate to rule this country and should do the right thing and call an election.
John Whittingdale, Conservative, Maldon and East Chelmsford
I am of course aware from our previous correspondence of your support for an English Parliament. As you know, I share your view that the creation of a Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly has created a constitutional crisis and I agree that it is unacceptable that MPs from Scottish and Welsh constituencies should continue to vote on issues which only affect England. This situation has been made worse by our now having a Prime Minister representing a Scottish constituency taking decisions which affect England but not the people that he represents.
As a first step, I strongly believe that only English MPs should vote on matters that affect England alone and this was the policy of the Conservative Party at the last election. Representing an English constituency, I am proud to call myself English and will continue to fight to ensure that England receives the same rights and privileges as other parts of the United Kingdom.
Mark Field MP, Conservative Cities of London And Westminster
I have to say that my party’s view that we should support English votes for English laws is unworkable. It is absurd that we should have to go through a health Bill, saying that clause 13(7) can be voted on only by English Members but that clause 13(8) can be voted on by all Members. That is nonsense. Nor do I support the notion of an English Grand Committee. It will allow those who wish to do so to suggest that we are somehow trying to put the Union at risk. However, we must have transparency in matters financial. I hope that we will be galvanised by considering all the facts.
At least since devolution, I have preferred the idea of having an English Parliament with exactly the same rights as the Scottish Parliament. I am the only Conservative Member who voted in favour of getting rid of the House of Lords. I would have the Lords as a UK Parliament, with a unicameral system, and have English, Welsh, Scottish and Northern Ireland Parliaments with exactly the same powers, but allowing foreign affairs, defence and a certain amount of fiscal policy to be made by a UK Parliament.
We shall surely return to these matters many times. Make no mistake, however, that any move to recalibrate the Barnett formula would have political and, above all, constitutional implications well beyond the merely financial and fiscal elements that make up what is to many a somewhat mischievous mechanism.
The Government are set on dividing England into separate regions. They wrongly believe that that will prevent the English problem from growing. It is no answer to people who wish England to have some balanced treatment of its affairs to reflect the devolution in Scotland and Wales to say that it will have some regional treatment in the Palace of Westminster. That is a red rag to a bull and not a way to tackle the tension. I hope that the Leader of the House understands that it will incense people who are worried about the plight of England; it will not reassure them. She should also understand that it poses grave questions about whether the Government have any belief in devolution.
I am a Member of Parliament from the south-east, as the Government see it. Many of us in the south-east do not recognise it as a region. It is drawn so clumsily that it means that London is not part of it, yet people in my region look to London for shopping, leisure and employment. We have much conversation and many dealings with London. We have almost no links with places such as Kent and Sussex, which are in my region. There is no regional feeling?the region is an artificial construct.
Furthermore, the south-east happens to be the region in England that always elects a Conservative majority . My hon. Friends and I strongly object to wasting money on regional government. We do not want the regional assembly, the development agency, the regional planning system or the housing quangos. We want them to be swept away. When the Leader of the House suggests that we need a body to provide accountability for the unaccountable quangos, she faces a genuine dilemma. Those who represent the so-called region do not want the quangos. We do not want to make them accountable; we want to get rid of them. If any sort of public intervention or expenditure of public moneys is needed?we would prefer less of both?that should be done through elected local government, which is democratically accountable and has some sense of locality and belonging. We have no sense of that in the south-east region as a whole.
Thursday 25th October 2007 in the House of Commons at 4:08 pm Source.
Thank you for your recent email regarding constitutional issues, I do appreciate your concern.
The creation of an English Parliament would produce another costly tier of politicians with an additional layer of bureaucracy that I do not believe people in England want. This would also move us towards a federal state which would cause instability due to the disproportionate size of the constituent parts that make up the United Kingdom .
We need to address the unfinished business of the devolution settlement which Labour has ignored the so-called West Lothian Question. Their failure to deal with this has created a constitutional imbalance between England and Scotland which, if we ignore it, could result in a fracturing of the United Kingdom .
The Conservative Party’s Democracy Task Force will be addressing this issue in a calm and considered fashion to ensure that devolution can work properly for the people of Scotland who voted for the Scottish Parliament, and for people in the rest of the United Kingdom .
Thank you for taking the time to write to me on this important matter.
The Witanagemot
