Evel proposals risk turning Commons into quasi-English parliament, MPs told
|
Version 0 of 1. Proposals for “English votes for English laws” risk turning the Commons into a quasi-English parliament, SNP and Lib Dem MPs have warned. Speaking during a fractious emergency debate on the issue on Tuesday, Alistair Carmichael, Lib Dem MP for Orkney and Shetland, described the plans as a “constitutional outrage” that would turn the Commons into “a proxy for an English parliament”. He told MPs: “The threat [to the union] does come from English nationalism. What pains me to say today though is that English nationalism is to be found on the Treasury bench.” The debate motion was defeated by a majority of 291 to 2 after the government abstained. While opposition MPs seized on this as a symbolic victory, perhaps more significant was the point of order then raised by Conservative MP David Davis. Related: MPs hold emergency debate on English votes for English laws (Evel) - Politics live He said that some Tory MPs had abstained because they agreed with opposition members that more time should be set aside to consider the Evel (English votes for English law) proposals, and requested advice on how best to “communicate that to the government”. Carmichael, the former Lib Dem Scottish secretary, requested the debate after opposition to the government’s plans from Labour, the SNP and his own party, in particular in relation to whether they should be introduced through standing orders or primary legislation. Describing the government as exhibiting “disrespect” for the Commons, the SNP MP and chair of the Scottish affairs committee, Pete Wishart, said: “What they are creating is a quasi-English parliament in the unitary parliament of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.” The proposals brought forward by Chris Grayling, the leader of the Commons, would give English MPs two chances to veto legislation and clauses relating to devolved matters, including some tax measures. Denouncing the proposals as a “constitutional outrage”, the shadow leader of the Commons, Angela Eagle, argued that the government was “more interested in pursuing a partisan procedural fix rather than working to keep the union together”. She went on to accuse the Tories of putting narrow party interests first. “It is the case that the government’s changes will turn their slim majority of 12 into something over three figures if Scottish and Welsh MPs are to be prevented from voting. “I believe this is the real driver for these changes and it makes the outrageous procedural fix of using standing orders rather than legislation to produce the change even more unacceptable. The unintended consequences of what they are doing could be very large indeed and the precedents they are setting are dire.” Conservative Sir Gerald Howarth responded that Labour must take responsibility for the situation that parliament found itself in, arguing that Evel “addresses a longstanding sense of grievance in England”. Challenged by Eagle on whether MPs would be able to amend the proposed new standing orders, Grayling promised to allow amendments to be put to a vote when MPs debate and vote on the plans next week. He insisted that the best way to introduce these changes was via standing orders but assured MPs that when the government reviews the process next year, it would be open to the idea of introducing primary legislation on the issue. Under the proposals, if a law relates to matters that have been devolved to the other countries in the UK, English MPs will take part in two new stages of consideration of legislation. The first would take the form of a grand committee in which only English MPs – or English and Welsh MPs – would be able to vote on legislation relating to their nations before the third reading of a bill. The second stage would come after the bill has passed through the Lords, when it would have to be approved by a double majority of all MPs as well as English MPs, or English and Welsh MPs. During the fierce debate on Tuesday afternoon, opposition MPs also raised concerns about the position of the Speaker, John Bercow, who would ultimately determine whether laws relate to citizens across the UK, English constituencies, or English and Welsh constituencies. Wishart warned Bercow: “You will have possibly the most political role in the House.” There was also argument around how Evel would cater for “Barnett consequentials”, the fact that decisions about English matters may have a knock-on effect in Scotland because of the Barnett formula, which governs the allocation of spending in the four nations that make up the UK. The former SNP leader Alex Salmond said that Scottish voters would be affected by legislation on schools and NHS budgets in England through that formula. The former Labour leader Ed Miliband described the proposals as “an act of constitutional vandalism”, adding: “It is not true to the great traditions of Conservatism and unionism.” |