TY - JOUR
AB - When the Government decided to deal with the public outcry over press intrusions by deploying the ancient institution of a Royal Chartered body rather than creating a modern statutory corporation, they appeared simply not to understand the feelings of puzzlement and outrage expressed by many outside the Westminster village. Perhaps it is not surprising therefore that they believe that the increasingly deep frustration felt by many residents of England at the imbalance in today’s Parliament—whereby Scottish MPs can interfere in English matters but not vice versa—can be addressed satisfactorily by minor changes to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, rather than by changing fundamental constitutional law. The English Votes for English Laws (‘EVEL’) system proposed in July 2015 by the Government was based on the McKay Commission recommendations (Cm. 8969) and on the Hague proposals for their implementation. Even after protests within Parliament at the idea of trying to solve a major constitutional problem by tweaking Parliamentary procedure, culminating in the real prospect of a defeat in a Commons vote on the subject, the Government’s response was only to return with a slightly modified set of proposals for amending Standing Orders designed to meet the immediate criticisms made of the first set. For a number of reasons EVEL cannot provide a satisfactory and coherent solution to the imbalance produced by broad devolution to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland without any kind of equivalent self-determination for England. At present, the Westminster Parliament is acting in effect both as a UK parliament and as a Parliament for England: but non-English Members are able to participate in both aspects. EVEL aims to isolate the second function and to reserve it to English Members. But, as the recently published Discussion Paper Towards a New Act of Union (Constitution Reform Group, 2015) makes clear, there are three principal reasons why this attempt is unlikely to be successful. It would be difficult to manufacture a process that resulted in English laws being completely hermetically sealed from the involvement of non-English Members—at present it is only in relation to certain proceedings in one of the two Houses of Parliament that any kind of separation is proposed. So long as EVEL fails to achieve that kind of hermetic seal, the frustration that found expression in the West Lothian question will have been addressed only partly, if at all, as Scottish Members will continue to exercise legislative influence in relation to matters in England on which English MPs have no say in relation to Scotland. Bills pass through two Houses of Parliament: it is impossible to separate the House of Lords into English and non-English Members as peers do not serve in a representative capacity. But having Bills on English matters passing through a House in which influence can be exerted by politicians whose political and other interests all relate to another part of the United Kingdom (and who may have sat in the Commons for non-English constituencies) has the potential to contribute to the perception of unequal governance. Bills are not the only issue. Equalizing English representation would require the inclusion of arrangements that related to Parliamentary Questions and other matters of equal importance within the political accountability mechanism. It would be difficult or impossible to find a way of distinguishing English-only issues in relation to this important function of Parliament—but while non-English Members can interfere on English matters outside legislation, the imbalance and the frustration which it cases will remain. With another referendum about the independence of Scotland seeming more and more likely to take place within the next year or two, it is urgent to find a method of arranging national governance in general, and legislation in particular, so that each part of the United Kingdom feels itself to be as valued as the other parts and with equal powers of self-determination. EVEL alone is not even a logical beginning to finding a satisfactory solution. © The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.
TI - The Evils of EVEL
JO - Statute Law Review
DO - 10.1093/slr/hmv034
DA - 2015-10-01
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/oxford-university-press/the-evils-of-evel-1DdCIBI4RI
SP - v
EP - vi
VL - 36
IS - 3
DP - DeepDyve
ER -