English Votes for English Laws: Choosing the right option
Dear Colleague,
I thought you might find a copy of the attached of interest.
In it my co-author and I set out the merits of each of the main options in the Government’s White Paper, The Implications of Devolution for England, published in December 2014.
Our conclusions are:
1. All three options in the Government’s White Paper deliver English Votes for English Laws. The Government has prudently dropped the much weaker option in the McKay Commission report, which would have given the English a voice, but not a veto.
2. Option Three offers the best prospect of delivering both English Votes for English Laws and buttressing the Union. Both are essential. Through a Grand Committee, it would provide a new and additional legislative stage in which English (or sometimes English and Welsh) MPs would accept or reject measures through a legislative consent motion, immediately before the Third Reading of a Bill.
3. The legislative consent motion in Option 3 would be highly visible, fair and simple to explain to the electorate. The constituents of each English (English and Welsh MP) will know that their MP can veto any measure affecting only them, and in a high profile vote in the House of Commons. In that key respect it is the most straightforward of the three options.
4. Nonetheless, it is by a short head that Option Three is preferable to Option Two, which provides the veto at Report stage, but without the legislative consent motion. The two are very similar.
5. Safeguarding the Union could be difficult under Option One which, by excluding all other MPs almost entirely from the legislative process, could leave a UK government with few practical powers. It would then be only a short step to the creation of an English Parliament.
Best wishes
Yours ever
Andrew
ANDREW TYRIE