Hugo Swire, Conservative, East Devon

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.

Dec 2007

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.

August 2007

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.

Wednesday 21st November 2007 at 2:59 pm
Source.

John Redwood MP, Conservative, Wokingham

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.

Keith Simpson MP, Conservative, Mid-Norfolk

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.

Yours sincerely

Keith Simpson

MP for Mid-Norfolk

2007

Jeffrey Titford, UKIP, Eastern Region

Thank you for your email dated 28th September 2007, addressed to Jeffrey Titford MEP. Mr Titford has asked me to reply on his behalf.

I do not believe that the Party is now supporting the establishment of an English Parliament. Its policy on the West Lothian question, was to introduce English only days in the existing Parliament, rather than establish a completely separate English Parliament. On these special days, MPs from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would be excluded from voting on legislation affecting only England.

From our point of view, there is little point in establishing an English Parliament, while we remain members of the European Union. In fact, to do so would be to play into the hands of the EU, which is quite happy to see the United Kingdom broken up. We can only enter into sensible debate on this issue, after Britain has left the European Union.

Best wishes,

Stuart Gulleford
Political Advisor to Jeffrey Titford MEP

October 07

Normal Baker MP, Liberal Democrat, Lewes

Thank you for taking the time to contact my office with regards to the introduction of an English parliament.I do not regard it as satisfactory or sustainable that Scottish, and to some extent Welsh and Irish MPs, should be able to vote on legislation which only pertains to England, when alternative arrangements exist for dealing with legislation relating to other parts of the United Kingdom.

I am, however, concerned that if an English parliament were established, that would create a further bureaucracy and could lead to disenfranchisement, as that would have a significant start-up cost, and a significant ongoing cost. I am not sure that a duplication of MPs, which is how people would see it, would be supported throughout England.

For that reason, I am better disposed to the idea that, when legislation is introduced in the House of Commons which relates only to England, that English MPs might be the only ones who are able to vote on such legislation.

To pick up on your second email. I think that you were inferring that the scrapping of regional assemblies may mean that an English parliament is more likely. I believe that even if this is the case it is important to ensure that greater power is still distributed to local authorities and that the heavy top-down approach used by this government is reassessed.

You may be aware that recently the Lib Dems were at the forefront when ensuring that the Sustainable Communities Bill passed its third reading in the House of Commons without being watered down. This bill would take a stance and vocalise my support for a strong Bill and on their behalf I wrote to the then Minister of State for Local Government and Community Cohesion, Phil Woolas MP. I have enclosed a copy of the response that I received for your information. As you can see, he gives his assurances that the Bill would not be watered down. However, it is important that with the recent cabinet re-shuffle we ensure that the government’s views remain the same.

I hope that this is helpful.

Yours sincerely

Norman Baker MP

Aug 07

Mark Field MP, Conservative, Cities of London & Westminster

Since the expulsion of most of the hereditary peers, I have, in principle, favoured the option of a fully or largely-elected House of Lords. However, I recognise that such an outcome is unlikely to be within the realms of practical politics, not least as the House of Lords as currently constituted is likely to be hostile and there would be little agreement as to the timing or form of elections. I would prefer to see the creation of a completely new federal parliament. Four, full, national parliaments in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland with most of the existing powers of the House of Commons and over them a federal United Kingdom parliament, which would debate defence and foreign affairs, make treaties and administer a cohesion fund for the poorer parts of the UK. It would be funded by a per GDP levy on the national parliaments. There would be no need for extra politicians, as the national parliaments would send representatives to the UK parliament and meet together for its debates, which could be held in the old House of Lords chamber.  I appreciate it is a bold, indeed a radical, suggestion but I believe that the only way to restore the balance of the British constitution, which had served us so well for so long, is to offer the British people this fairer alternative in a referendum once we have won the next election.

Date 07 August 2007 Source.

Lai-Sze Lai, Constitutional Settlement Division

Dear Sir

Justice for England – on the 300th Anniversary of the British Union

Thank you for the presentation of a petition for an English Parliament.

England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, are components of the United Kingdom (UK), each with their own histories and distinct national identities, as well as different administrative structures, size and population. As a result, the Government believes that different approaches and solutions are appropriate to address the differences that exist between the components that comprise the UK.

The highest priority was given to the creation of a parliament in Scotland, and a national assembly in Wales, since the demand for decentralisation in these countries was long-standing. Indeed, proposals to create similar institutions were enacted in the late 1970’s, but failed to secure the necessary majorities in referendums.

The existing devolution settlement introduced in 1997/98 was designed to meet varying needs, so that local decisions could be made to respond to local problems. This has been the success of devolution, which can be seen in the variety of policy such as Health and Education, which are implemented across England, Wales and Scotland.

The Barnett Formula, which you raised in your letter, provides the Devolved Administrations with a population based share of comparable increases in spending for UK Government departments and reflects long standing conventions that have governed funding for Scotland and Wales under successive administrations. This block grant and how it is spent is then decided by the Devolved Administrations.

Nonetheless, the UK Parliament remains sovereign, and retains the authority to legislate on any issues, devolved or otherwise. However, the UK Government works in accordance with the convention that it will not normally legislate with regards to devolved matters except with the agreement of the Devolved Administrations.

On the issue of voting rights of Scottish MPs, a fundamental principle of the UK Parliament is that all MPs have equal rights. This means that each MP can vote on any matter brought before them, whether they represent English, Scottish or any other constituencies.

It should be noted that the number of MPs representing Scottish constituencies in Westminster have been reduced, from 72 to 59 in the General Election of May 2005. Additionally, the Boundary Commission for Wales keeps the parliamentary constituencies within Wales under continual review. Looking at Scotland in particular, prior to devolution, there were special statutory provisions which stipulated a minimum of Scottish seats, designed to protect Scottish interests.

The Government is against discrimination of any kind and therefore will not deliberate on any proposal that would prevent anyone born in Scotland becoming a Member of Parliament within the UK.

You may also wish to note that the Government has asked Parliament to consider establishing regional select committees. Establishment of select committees is a matter for Parliament, not Government, so we look forward to proposals coming forward from Parliament.

In addition, the Communities and Local Government Select Committee recommended the establishment of regional select committees (Is there a future for regional government? Fourth Report of Session 2006-7, HC352-I). They highlighted the potential benefits, including effective examination of the work of regional bodies and calling Ministers to account. The Government agrees with that analysis.

I hope this addresses your concerns.

Yours sincerely

Lai-Sze Lai
Constitutional Settlement Division

July 07

Christian Moon, Head of Liberal Democrats Policy Unit

Thanks for this enquiry. Liberal Democrats’ answer to the West Lothian question is regional parliaments within England. the problem with an all-England Parliament is that it would cover more than 80% of the population of the UK, so it would not really bring government significantly closer to the people.

Best wishes,

Christian Moon.

October 22, 2004