Unfinished business

Sir Malcolm Rifkind spoke at the CPS this week about The Unfinished Business of Devolution. I wasn't there to hear it, but ConservativeHome has a good write-up here.

Rifkind is right that the West Lothian Question – the constitutional anomaly that means Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs can vote on issues that only affect English voters, while their own constituents are governed by devolved institutions – needs to be addressed. It's a basic issue of fairness. Tuition fees, the ban on fox hunting and foundation hospitals were all forced through Parliament by non-English votes, even though they only applied to England.

Rifkind is also right that his proposed solution, a grand committee of English MPs who would consider, amend and vote on English-only legislation, is better than the fudge Ken Clarke's 'Democracy Taskforce' is considering. But it still doesn't go far enough – it lets an unrepresentative government continue to control the policy agenda.

I think there are two options. The first is to establish an English Parliament, as I recommended in this ASI Briefing. It need not amount to gross over-government or excessive cost as Rifkind fears. The new English Parliament could be made up of all the existing English MPs in the UK Parliament, sitting in the House of Commons for 'English sessions'. This parliament would elect its own First Minister who would appoint a cabinet to exercise the devolved powers (existing government departments would simply be transferred from the UK government to the English one).

The second option is more radical and localist. Rather than have devolved powers exercised by an English Parliament, you could shift authority closer to the voters and put counties in charge (as I suggested here). Parliament would then be free to focus on the real affairs of state like foreign policy, security and defence – which is what it should be doing anyway!

Either way, it's important that the devolved authorities set their own taxes and spend only revenue they themselves raise. That discourages profligacy, rewards efficiency and increases accountability.

As Rifkind says, it's about time we dealt with the unfinished business of devolution.

...
written by Mark Wadsworth, April 25, 2008

Agreed. Every layer of government adds an extra layer of waste and corruption. Let the national government do the short list you mentioned, let local authorities do everything else. AFAICS, nearly all services are local services - police, education, health, public transport and roads. It's difficult to think of much that isn't local, really.

...
written by John, April 25, 2008

Yes , we need an English parliament . But No , not a subcommittee of the British government which is what you are proposing .
After the Scotland Act 1998 there is only one democratically acceptable path for England and that is a fully comparable parliament, ministry , first minister , government , civil service and budget with that of Scotland . Nothing less will do.

The difference in size of the two countries is irrelevant. The cost - won't be much ,as the EP will simply take over 85% of what the British government does - is also irrelevant.

The United Kingdom was a marriage of two countries, both of them old parliamentarian countries who pooled their sovereignties and parliaments .

One of them has regained her self rule , the other still has hers pooled with the other the other along with her money. This is unfair and unsustainable .
England must have her own parliament as the very foundation of her own government . Only in that way can the marriage of England and Scotland as the British be sustained .

...
written by Neal, April 25, 2008

I'm all for devolution to English counties or whatever, but this chestnut needs burying. It is perfectly fair that Welsh MPs still vote on English only issues because English MPs still vote on Welsh only issues (and always have done). The Welsh Assembly has no law making powers, except such as are devolved to them tiny bit by tiny bit by English MPs.

So calm down English. You have many admirable qualities, but crying "persecution" by institutions YOU invented is not one of them (after all, we never asked for the bloody act of union!)

...
written by Ian Campbell, April 26, 2008

The drawback with the Clarke, Rifkind and previous Tory policies, as with your county proposal, is that England is left without a voice, without any political existence or national focus. An even bigger drawback with all of the proposals, bearing in mind that all peoples are entitled to national self-determination (International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights 1976, Claim of Right for Scotland etc), is that no-one is asking the people of England, as they are entitled to be asked, whether they wish to have their own Parliament. All of these proposals are designed to avoid putting to the English people the same simple question in the way that it was put to the people of Scotland. And the reason for this is that all those proposing a fudge of some kind are terrified that the people of England might say yes, we do want our own Parliament. The only democratic solution is to ask them.

An English Parliament first
written by Stephen Gash, April 26, 2008

The only solution is an English Parliament.

Scottish independence has not been bought off, the SNP holds power in Scotland.

If England is carved up into regions and then Scotland and Wales go independent, England will be no more and the English will be without a country and will be powerless.

This is the whole point of devolution within the Euro-project.

Rifkind is a blatant hypocrite who resigned from the Tory front bench because it wouldn't back a Scottish Parliament, yet he denies the English a parliament. He headed up the failed Scottish Grand Committee, yet he wants to foist one on the English.

Once and English Parliament has been estblished the English will determine how local government will be organised.

The Scottish Parliament rendered MPs in Scotland redundant and powerless in Scotland. An English Parliament would do the same to MPs in England which is why they oppose one. Pure self interest, nothing more.

With an English Parliament a UK Grand Committee could meet once a week to decide UK affairs. A redundant regional assembly building would do for that.

...
written by David Brennan, April 26, 2008

A FREE AND INDEPENDENT IS THE ONLY ANSWER, anything else is just fudge. so take your Britishness and shove it where the sun don't shine

...
written by Don Beadle, April 28, 2008

It is worth considering the compromise of an English Grand Commitee only if it could elect an English Executive to whom the UK government would devolved at least the same powers as those accorded to Scotland.
It is nonsense to suggest that such powers could be devolved to County Councils. They include the power to enact primary legislation and England would become a chaotic place in which to live with a post code lottery run mad.

Written by Tom Clougherty
Friday, 25 April 2008
Sir Malcolm Rifkind spoke at the CPS this week about The Unfinished Business of Devolution. I wasn't there to hear it, but ConservativeHome has a good write-up here. Rifkind is right that the West Lothian Question – the constitutional anomaly that means Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs can vote on issues that only affect English voters, while their own constituents are governed by devolved institutions – needs to be addressed. It's a basic issue of fairness. Tuition fees, the ban on fox hunting and foundation hospitals were all forced through Parliament by non-English votes, even though they only applied to England. Rifkind is also right that his proposed solution, a grand committee of English MPs who would consider, amend and vote on English-only legislation, is better than the fudge Ken Clarke's 'Democracy Taskforce' is considering. But it still doesn't go far enough – it lets an unrepresentative government continue to control the policy agenda. I think there are two options. The first is to establish an English Parliament, as I recommended in this ASI Briefing. It need not amount to gross over-government or excessive cost as Rifkind fears. The new English Parliament could be made up of all the existing English MPs in the UK Parliament, sitting in the House of Commons for 'English sessions'. This parliament would elect its own First Minister who would appoint a cabinet to exercise the devolved powers (existing government departments would simply be transferred from the UK government to the English one). The second option is more radical and localist. Rather than have devolved powers exercised by an English Parliament, you could shift authority closer to the voters and put counties in charge (as I suggested here). Parliament would then be free to focus on the real affairs of state like foreign policy, security and defence – which is what it should be doing anyway! Either way, it's important that the devolved authorities set their own taxes and spend only revenue they themselves raise. That discourages profligacy, rewards efficiency and increases accountability. As Rifkind says, it's about time we dealt with the unfinished business of devolution. Bookmark Comments (7) Subscribe to this comment's feed ... written by Mark Wadsworth, April 25, 2008 Agreed. Every layer of government adds an extra layer of waste and corruption. Let the national government do the short list you mentioned, let local authorities do everything else. AFAICS, nearly all services are local services - police, education, health, public transport and roads. It's difficult to think of much that isn't local, really. ... written by John, April 25, 2008 Yes , we need an English parliament . But No , not a subcommittee of the British government which is what you are proposing . After the Scotland Act 1998 there is only one democratically acceptable path for England and that is a fully comparable parliament, ministry , first minister , government , civil service and budget with that of Scotland . Nothing less will do. The difference in size of the two countries is irrelevant. The cost - won't be much ,as the EP will simply take over 85% of what the British government does - is also irrelevant. The United Kingdom was a marriage of two countries, both of them old parliamentarian countries who pooled their sovereignties and parliaments . One of them has regained her self rule , the other still has hers pooled with the other the other along with her money. This is unfair and unsustainable . England must have her own parliament as the very foundation of her own government . Only in that way can the marriage of England and Scotland as the British be sustained . ... written by Neal, April 25, 2008 I'm all for devolution to English counties or whatever, but this chestnut needs burying. It is perfectly fair that Welsh MPs still vote on English only issues because English MPs still vote on Welsh only issues (and always have done). The Welsh Assembly has no law making powers, except such as are devolved to them tiny bit by tiny bit by English MPs. So calm down English. You have many admirable qualities, but crying "persecution" by institutions YOU invented is not one of them (after all, we never asked for the bloody act of union!) ... written by Ian Campbell, April 26, 2008 The drawback with the Clarke, Rifkind and previous Tory policies, as with your county proposal, is that England is left without a voice, without any political existence or national focus. An even bigger drawback with all of the proposals, bearing in mind that all peoples are entitled to national self-determination (International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights 1976, Claim of Right for Scotland etc), is that no-one is asking the people of England, as they are entitled to be asked, whether they wish to have their own Parliament. All of these proposals are designed to avoid putting to the English people the same simple question in the way that it was put to the people of Scotland. And the reason for this is that all those proposing a fudge of some kind are terrified that the people of England might say yes, we do want our own Parliament. The only democratic solution is to ask them. An English Parliament first written by Stephen Gash, April 26, 2008 The only solution is an English Parliament. Scottish independence has not been bought off, the SNP holds power in Scotland. If England is carved up into regions and then Scotland and Wales go independent, England will be no more and the English will be without a country and will be powerless. This is the whole point of devolution within the Euro-project. Rifkind is a blatant hypocrite who resigned from the Tory front bench because it wouldn't back a Scottish Parliament, yet he denies the English a parliament. He headed up the failed Scottish Grand Committee, yet he wants to foist one on the English. Once and English Parliament has been estblished the English will determine how local government will be organised. The Scottish Parliament rendered MPs in Scotland redundant and powerless in Scotland. An English Parliament would do the same to MPs in England which is why they oppose one. Pure self interest, nothing more. With an English Parliament a UK Grand Committee could meet once a week to decide UK affairs. A redundant regional assembly building would do for that. ... written by David Brennan, April 26, 2008 A FREE AND INDEPENDENT IS THE ONLY ANSWER, anything else is just fudge. so take your Britishness and shove it where the sun don't shine ... written by Don Beadle, April 28, 2008 It is worth considering the compromise of an English Grand Commitee only if it could elect an English Executive to whom the UK government would devolved at least the same powers as those accorded to Scotland. It is nonsense to suggest that such powers could be devolved to County Councils. They include the power to enact primary legislation and England would become a chaotic place in which to live with a post code lottery run mad. Write comment This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comment. Powered by Azrul's Jom Comment for Joomla!