Post your thoughts on the grand committee on the feedback form at the
bottom of this story
The United Kingdom remains one of the most stable, healthy and robust
parliamentary democracies in today’s world. But, in the past 10 years it has
become a very different United Kingdom from that which prevailed over the
previous 300 years.
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland now have elected parliaments or
assemblies that ensure Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast can have the final say
on decisions that affect their own communities and do not apply to the rest
of the kingdom.
England has become the exception to this rule. This is ironic as it was the
power and dominance of English MPs, representing 81% of the House of
Commons, that gave rise to the demand for devolution.
Even today the views of English MPs cannot be resisted if they speak with a
single voice. But, of course, they rarely do and that is where the 117 MPs
from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can decide the outcome. If they do
so on legislation that affects the whole of the United Kingdom that is
entirely reasonable. It is when they are the deciding votes on legislation
that affects only England that it has become indefensible.
That has happened on both tuition fees and foundation hospitals when a
majority of English MPs voted against new laws for England but were defeated
because of Scottish votes in policy areas that are now devolved to the
Scottish parliament.
The problem would get seriously worse if the result of the next general
election were a hung parliament. It will also get more acute if, as is
likely, the Welsh assembly is given the same legislative powers as the Scots
and Northern Irish.
The problem could be resolved by the creation of an English parliament
alongside Westminster. But most people in England are content with the
Commons; they just want it to operate in a way that is fair to English
interests. That is why I have suggested creating an English grand committee
in the Commons that would have the last word on all purely English
legislation to stop unfairness.
While the Commons would retain the legal right to overturn the grand
committee’s decisions, there would be a convention, or rule, that it would
not do so. The Commons has many such conventions. In law it can overrule the
Scottish parliament or the Welsh assembly on devolved issues. It does not do
so because a new convention has been accepted that this would be
incompatible with devolution.
Government ministers warn that an English grand committee would destroy the
union and be a gift to the nationalists. This line of reasoning is strange,
to say the least. For years we were told by the government that the union
would not survive if there was not devolution for Scotland and Wales. Now
ministers are saying that the union will not survive if there is also
devolution to England.
The Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru will be delighted if the growing
resentment in England is ignored and if the English become disillusioned
with the union. If, however, that boil is lanced, all the peoples of the
kingdom will have a comparable control over their own affairs.
Ministers, and some others, have suggested that a better solution would be to
create elected assemblies for the various regions of England. I would have
no objection if that was what the people of England wanted. All the
evidence, including the referendums in the north of England and the
northwest, suggests that they do not. In any event, the issue is about the
power to make new law and nobody in the government is suggesting the
devolution of legislative powers to English regional assemblies.
A more serious criticism has been whether it would be possible to identify
which bills applied only to England and which had provisions that applied to
the rest of the kingdom. Many acts of parliament have both English and
British provisions; but that is because, until now, there was no reason for
them to be unbundled.
It would be straightforward for there to be separate bills, ensuring that
those that went to the grand committee were those that applied only in
England. For years before devolution this was done with Scottish legislation
which was sent to a Scottish grand committee. With a different legal system
in Scotland, this was necessary.
Nobody suggested that it was unworkable then. Nor is it now.
The criticism that seems, at first, most formidable is that the British
government might be unable to enact part of its legislative programme if it
were in a minority in the grand committee. This, it is alleged, would be an
unprecedented cause of instability and confusion and would deny the
government its constitutional rights.
This argument is nonsense. Far from being unprecedented it is what has
happened whenever, as during 1964-6 and 1974-9, we have had a hung
parliament. The government found that it had to compromise, make concessions
and, occasionally, withdraw its proposals. This is called parliamentary
democracy. The alternative would be for the government to force laws on
England alone, which the majority of its elected MPs had voted against.
Nor would the government be unable to govern. Most of the work of ministers
does not consist of making new laws but of operating existing ones. New
legislation in devolved areas would still be possible but would have to be
subject to more compromise and concessions than in the past. It is worth
remembering that the devolved areas are limited to education, health,
housing, legal affairs and a number of other matters. All taxation, public
expenditure, social security, pensions, immigration, Europe, energy and many
other issues would not go to the grand committee.
I have no greater interest than any minister has in creating two classes of
MP. That would be unacceptable. But in one sense we have that now, as Scots
and Northern Irish MPs can vote on English business in circumstances where
the English have no comparable rights. By rectifying that anomaly we create
a more, not less, equal relationship between members of parliament.
Nor is it sensible to suggest that the effect of an English grand committee
would mean that a Scots or Welsh MP could never again be prime minister. The
main business of government – tax, public expenditure, social security,
pensions, defence, Europe and foreign policy – remains the sole
responsibility of the British government. The prime minister would continue
to be able to represent any constituency in the United Kingdom. Anything
else is inconceivable.
An English grand committee may not be the only solution to the so-called West
Lothian question. There may be other reforms that would remove the
unfairness. What is clear, however, is that the status quo is not an option.
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland now have a large measure of democratic
control over their own affairs. The unfinished business of devolution is
England. This issue needs to be dealt with sensitively and sensibly. With a
bit of statesmanship and common sense it can be resolved.
It is simple really, if other countries in the UK are able to make decisions regarding their 'country' without other UK members having a say, then so should England; matters affecting the whole of the UK should be dealt with separately with all UK countries being involved - so lets do it?
Christine Cross, Upper Boddington, England
An English grand committee would be unnecessary if only MPs behaved as the honourable gentlemen they are supposed to be.
The MPs whose constituents will not be affected by a particular piece of legislation should simply refrain from voting on that legislation.
To vote in such circumstances is clearly morally indefensible and not the behaviour of ‘honourable gentlemen’.
mervyn owen, worcester,
Sorry,Sir Malcolm,but we English will not be fobbed off anymore with anything less than a full English parliament,and if it leads to the break up of the UK so what?we are tired of being blamed for everything that has gone bad for the other nations of the union while they at the same time hold out their hands for yet more money.
Andy, London,
100% agreement with Malcolm Rifkind's article.
Whilst it is widely accepted that everybody want's to see a strong and united union now and in the future, I cannot believe that this issue has not been raised to a higher profile and given more time to debate.
How can it be fair that countries are given the autonomy to make crucial decisions on education and healthcare provision whilst not giving the same rights to another.
The politician's need to realise this is a growing area of frustration and resentment within the English communities.
Neil Coxsidge, wakefield,
George from London,
It's quite simple. If you have objections to the Barnett formula and you feel that Scotland is being subsidised unfairly, please tell us in Scotland when you are coming to collect your nuclear weapons and the rusting hulks of the nuclear submarines sitting at Rosyth Dockyards. Heck, tell us where and we'll deliver!
If you can find somewhere neared to London that will have them for less that it costs to store them in Scotland, good luck to you!
DaveK, Edinburgh,
I am afraid you are wrong in your presumptions.
I know for certain most people in England have not been asked about having an English Parliament. What even were the questions, they were supposedly asked? An I am absolutely positive if the correct questions were asked, 100% of the English people would vote for and should already have an English parliament.
I hate the way the media decide without informing, what 60 million people want. It really makes me boil.
Mr C Wade
Chris, Wirral, Cheshire
The way the Scotland Act, 1998, has been applied doubled the voting rights of Scottish residents, giving them one vote to determine their own domestic policies and another to participate in controlling all political matters in England. Their election did not, however, give them authority to do the latter. MPs authority depends upon the fact that they act on behalf of their constituents as their representatives. The Scotland Act specified the matters for which Parliament remained responsible after devolution and other matters became the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament. MPs elected in Scotland therefore cannot act at Westminster on their voters' behalf for devolved matters and, for this reason, have no legal or constitutional right to deal with such matters, in England or anywhere else. They are justified in dealing only with matters in Scotland for which Parliament is responsible.The fact that English MPs cannot act on devolved matters in Scotland is irrelevant.
Denis Latimer, Barrow-in-Furness, UK
Give devolution to England!
No, here's an alternative. The Welsh, Scottish, Irish and possibly including a lot of them who live and work in England, don't really like the English. Add to them the Cornish and many of the people who have migrated here from abroad. Furthermore, other bits of the UK that stick out, such as Kent, Isle of Wight, and the Channel Islands may decide they want to devolve and then join in the dislike of the English.
Solution; the UK must eventually be ethnically cleansed of the English and then let the devolved cleansers sort themselves out having banished the English abroad somewhere, or committed them to designated ghettoed areas.
I am a 79 year-old Englishman who neither knows nor cares about his ethnic origins be they Saxon, Celt, Viking etc or a mixture of all, nor do I carry any notions of elitism or distinction of race......just a mongrel, as most people are.
Alan Riddington, Solihull, United Kingdom
The union of the parliaments in 1707, the treaty stated that the Scottish parliament was dissolved with the English parliament continuing. Today you have a parliament of over 600 members
over 80% of whom are English and you are squawking, you English have ruled all of Britain for 300 years and nobody bothered that much I can't understand your complaint.
If you want to see the Scots, Irish, and Welsh contingents leave the British army. If you want the back door and West door to England laid open you are going the right way about it.
Personally I quite agree with your aspirations for your own assembly; but if I were you I would be very concerned about some of the unintended consequences.
Don't be fooled by your own gutter press which refrain from their racist gibes in their editions for the rest of the United Kingdom; they actually know better than to publish their tribal bile to the rest of us.
London alone receives a bigger subsidy than all three of the devolved states put together,
James Hamilton, Falkirk, Scotland
One question that has been in my mind for many years and which has not been fully addressed is one that should especially appeal to Sir Malcolm - coming as he does from Edinburgh . It is simply this: what about the Scots who live in England (and who probably outnumber the Scots in Scotland)? Can we have a say? I write as an Aberdonian Episcopalian priest who has worked for 50 years in England and who would never describe myself as English but perhaps as a British Scot. My mother worked hard for the Unionists in Aberdeen when there were three Unionist MPs out of four in that area. It saddens me to see the Union threatened when it should be strengthened. Canon Thomas Christie
Thomas Christie, Peterborough,
Hello
Of course the English turned down 'regional' assemblies.
The idea was a labour ploy to break and fragment England. England is one nation.
The idea of allowing Labour and the Eu to dictate what constituted our ancient land and place artificial barriers between parts of the whole was rghtfully, and for Prescott and the EU humiliatingly, turned down by a large majority.
Thank you people of the north east. You spoke for us all.
We want a fully fledged PR based assembly like the other three constituent parts of the UK.
We want nothing more, or less, than equality for the English people.
E Sutherland
E Sutherland, st albans, England
We wish English only votes on English matters because we see and feel the unfairness of Scottish devolution. Why should a Scottish student studying in an ENGLISH University get a full grant when an English student of similar parental financial standing studying at the SAME English University has to pay with a £30,000 debt? Even ASYLUM seekers living in Scotland for over 3 years will get grants for their children whilst an English family moving to Scotland still won't qualify for this. Why should an English pensioner have to SELL their home to pay for elederly care leaving NO INHERITANCE whilst a Scottish one of similar financial standing doesn't and can pass on their inheritance to their Scottish children? Even an English pensioner moving to live in Scotland will not qualify for this, but a Scotish pensioner who lived in England and moves back to Scotland will qualify. This, whilst the Barnet formula gives higher public spending per capita to Scotland subsidised by English taxpayers.
George, London,
Rifkind`s real problem is that a Grand Committee, as he envisages it, would only have a power of veto. It could hardly force ministers to operate policies which they oppose. Real devolution seems the only solution to the problem - if problem it is - and that requires an elected body specifically from English voters together with an English executive to implement policies.
Phil, market drayton, UK
I seem to remember Labour did put devolution on offer to English regions .And some of them laughed at the idea and didnt even want a vote.Good luck to Scotland,They are a smaller country and have to shout louder,We just winge about it.The UK has been splitting at the seems for decades,
D Paterson, Blackpool, lancs
Mr Rifkind is only giving a solution to part of what should be called the 'English Question', the English Question is in 3 parts.
A) The West Lothian Question
B) The Barnett Formula
C) The Democratic defict of the English Elecotrate
What Mr Rifkin proposes only answers part A, parts B & C still need to be answered. Part B; although Scotland gets it's block grant from the UK treasury, Scotland will still receive monies pro-rata from any major investment in England, look at Crossrail it is said to cost £16 billion yet under the Barnett formula Scotland will receive a further grant of 16/85ths of the costs, so having already had a financial settlement Scotland will receive more money although Crossrail is an English only issue, so to enable issues to be English only the Barnett Formula needs to scrapped. Part C; Mr Rifkinds proposal does nothing to give the English electorate the same voting rights as the Scottish electorate.
Barry (The Elder), London, England
If its good enough for Scotland,Wales and N Ireland its bloody well good enough for us. New Labour introduced it and is being totally hypocritical by claiming a break up of the Union would result from a reciprocal arrangement in England's interest already granted to the other three.
philip, Ipswich,
How dare Malcolm Rifkind, a Scot, tell us the English what we should have. Only an English Parliament will do! The problem with ,not just England, but Britian is that all the three main parties are full of Scots led by Scots, yes Cameron is a Scot!! My Mp is a Scot, Desmond Swayne, when I e-mail him about this issue, he says, I will reply by Royal Mail, I receive a printed postcard saying, your comments have been noted.Does this make you think anything other than an English Parliament will do.The Scots who have got this country into the mess it`s in now, would still control England with anything less.I am considering writing to the Saudi Arabian embassy to help us,the English to be free from this discrimination by the Scots!This proposal by Rifkind is nothing new, Cameron has been pushing it for a long time.
Raymond Groutage, Ringwood, Hampshire, England
Are all readers in England completely non-numerate. Simple arithmetic will tell you that Scotland is outvoted in the Westminster parliament by over ten to one. Therefore it is unlikely that the Scots could impose their will on the English.
On the contrary for three hundred years it is the Scots that have had little say over matters that affected Scots or Scottish interests - Development of the oil industry being a prime example . It was the Westminster parliament through English votes that created a fictitious country called Extra Regio Territories that covered all the oil fields - except those in England!
If we are to have separate parliament in each country then the UK is at an end. Let us dissolve this enforced Union and form a new relationship between our Independent countries. For those that think the Scots don't want this I say do not believe the compromised Press. The Scots may not all agree with the SNP that is not the same as wanting independence.
Sanny frae Glesga, Glasgow, Scotland
England should be ruled by English people.
Not Scots, Welsh or Irish people with hidden agendas.
Freedom is calling the English at last.
d green, London, Britain
How is this proposal ‘fair’ to England? To be fair, you would have to offer the people of England the same choice as was given to the people of Scotland, that is a referendum on (a) whether they wish to have their own parliament and (b) whether that parliament should have tax-varying powers.
It was always unfair to offer the Welsh a lesser deal. This was ‘justified’ by the British government on the grounds that the people of Wales, in that phrase beloved of colonial governments, were ‘not yet ready’ for full Scottish-style devolution. Sir Malcolm states, with no evidence, that 'most people in England are satisfied with the Commons'. No referendum is offered. Opinion polls suggest 60% support for an English Parliament,
The English Grand Committee does not include an Executive or First Minister. Who will speak for England in the British-Irish Council or the EU?
The proposal is clearly designed as an attempt to avoid the fair, logical and democratic solution - an English Parliament.
Ian Campbell, West Horsley Leatherhead, Surrey England
Your headline "Be fair, give devolution to Engalnd" might imply that this is what Malcolm Rifkind is proposing. But he is only dealing with parliamentary procedure and the West Lothian question. The government of England would remain with the UK government who would be formulating and administering English legislation.
Devolution to Scotland that Rifkind strong supported involved devolving extensive powers to a Scottish Parliament and Executive. Why should we not have the same for England?
At least he might have proposed that his English Grand Committee should be able to elect an English Executive to whom the UK Government would devolve the same powers as those accorded to Scotland.
Better still have an English Parliament like the Scots Parliament.
Why should England accept a half baked impractical solution proposed by a Scot?
Don Beadle, Gosport, England
The whole argument for an English Grand Committee is flawed and contradicted by the MP by his own statements. If you want to stop unfairness, everyone should be equal...if the Scots had a grand committee and it was upgraded to a parliament along with Northern Ireland and soon, 'as it is likely, the Welsh Assembly', then guess what? That's what the English want also - An English Parliament with equal powers to the Scots, Welsh and Irish. That is a federal system, we could start tomorrow.
The carving up England into regions is the concoction of the EUSSR imperial machine and would not provide any legislating powers, just the end of England.
An English Parliament in Westminster (as it is ours) or in Winchester , the seat of Alfred, where the kingdom commenced 1080 years ago (anniversary 26th October). The 'British Government' can go and rent some space from their mates in Brussels or the White House - who cares!
PS. And we could vote to ensure English History in English schools
stubby, Telford, England
It is clear that Scottish MPs should not be allowed to vote on English matters that do not affect their constituents. As an example, university tuition fees were imposed on England solely because of the votes of Scottish MPs, whose constituents do not pay them.
The English just want equal treatment. Why should we have a Prime Minister or Chancellor increasing taxes such as prescription charges which are not paid by his own constituents?
John Kinson, Birmingham,
British democracy as seen over 100 years ago was the envy of the developing world however in the 21st century it is now severely lacking. This voting issue is just one very obvious undemocratic element of our system and should be changed forthwith. However there is one other element that is just as undemocratic and that is the whip system in parliament. When I vote an MP into power it's because I want him to represent my interests in parliament over and above that of the party. America does practice this true form of democracy as those voted into power can and do go against the party line on many occasions when its against the interests of those who voted them in. Britain though has this threat of expulsion with the whips (as happened with Ken Livingston) if MP's don't toe the party line. This sort of cohersion and blackmail is actually illegal in the workplace and elsewhere but apparently not so in parliament. Democracy in the UK is therefore just a pretense and not a true reality.
Mike, Alicante, Spain
An English Grand Committee is an insult to an ancient and proud nation. The answer to the West Lothian Question is, in a word - independence. It is noticeable that a greater percentage of English voters favour Scottish independence than Scots voters do.
Time for the English to look closer to home and realise that the Union is an 18th century solution to a 17th c. problem. It is totally irrelevant to the 21st century.
J Brown, Ayr, Scotland
The Labour government gave parliaments/assemblies to some countries of the UK so that, as Rifkind says, they could have the final say on decisions that affect their “own communities†– and, in the case of Scotland, as Blair said, because “Scotland is a proud, historic nationâ€. That same Labour government, by trying to abolish England by balkanizing it with ‘regions’, is refusing to recognize that England too has its own community and is trying to silence England’s national voice as a proud, historic nation.
IM Archer, Alton, England
The government wouldn't choose the committee members. It would be a grand committee of all English MPs.
The government's resort to claims that the proposal would undermine the constitution is unlikely to have resonance with anyone outside the Westminster village. Yes, of course they would have to trim their proposals to the will of the English elected representatives. Damn irritating, this democracy.
By the way, the Barnett formula is a financial issue and therefore not devolved.
John Page, Brookmans Park, UK
How on earth does this work without an English Executive? Under this plan the Minister concerned in proposing legislation to an English Grand Committee would still be a minister in UK Government. If that Government was Labour, and England returns, as it usually does, a minority of Labour MPs we would have deadlock. Would the Committee be able to propose its own legislation and require the UK Government to carry it out?
At this point, now we are recognising that this problem has to be addressed, surely a Federal System of sorts is the only answer. The English MPs would constitute the English Parliament and elect an executive on the Scottish model.
P.D.FifzGerald-Morris, Rochester, England
Hello
The English deserve better than a half baked Grand Committee. Typical Tory thinking.
Such a committee gives them the right to run England as a personal fiefdom without the necessity of English elections on the same basis as the other devolved Assemblies - PR.
PR would give smaller parties a chance and create a far different picture of representation than the first past the post system which stitches up elections in favour of the lib/lab/con.
Lets have a real English parliament somewhere like Evesham, or another central place with ancient parliamentary associations, and a PR one that really reflects the regional and otherwise full spectrum of English politics.
E Sutherland
E Sutherland, st albans, England
Time to complete a process started by this government and give England the same rights as other parts of the UK.
Paul Foster , Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire
As a citizen of Northern Ireland now living in Greece, I believe Sir Malcolm's findings are entirely rational and fair. I also believe the English are sensible enough not to seek a separate English parliament - as they proved two years ago by rejected "Two Jags'" offer of an assembly for Northern England - but to seek rather minor changes to the procedures of the House of Commons. After all, the latter is situated in England, not Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. The argument that no future prime minister could come from a non-English constituency in this new arrangement is fallacious since the two main parties draw MPs and members of the House of Lords from all parts of the United Kingdom. It is even conceivable that in a shared government, such as operated under the Lib-Lab pact, that the prime minister could come from one of the minor parties (if the Queen were faced with a hung parliament in 2009-10 for example!). In summary, Sir Malcolm's report deserves the widest support.
Dr David Green, Athens, Greece
In 1997, the indigenous Tory Party was wiped out in Scotland! After the authour of this highly dubious proposal lost his Westminster seat, and later failed to regain it, he sloped off to cosy Kensington and Chelsea? During his tenure as Scots Secretary he used his nation as a local taxation experiment, and with the votes of ENGLISH M.P.'s, pushed through the legislation which brought in the iniquitous Community Charge (Poll Tax) in Scotland, ONE YEAR earlier than England and Wales?. The subsequent campaign of civil disobedience by hundreds of thousands of Scots from every socio-economic group with the slogan: "CAN PAY, WON'T PAY" finished off the indigenous Tories for a generation! On the eve of its introduction in England and Wales, widespread protests and rioting in Central London confirmed that the Poll Tax was untenable and unenforceable, and it was abolished! The English should not be taken in by this cosseted Scottish carpetbagger's highly dangerous proposal!
Mr Lachie Todd, Edinburgh, Scotland, U.K.
I agree that the status quo is unfair. I cannot understand the views of mainly Labour Scottish MPs who wish to be able to influence "English Only" matters sometimes in the opposite direction of the way they would vote for a "Scottish Only" matter
I think that long term the question of the form of flawed Devolution that was introduced by New Labour has got to be examined. Nothing is sustainable in the long term if one party is disadvantaged. People who argue for the status quo and ignore the unfairness to the English are burying their head in the sand.
John Goh, Welwyn Garden City, UK
The only way to properly ensure that "all the peoples of the kingdom will have a comparable control over their own affairs" is to create a federal union, in which the constituent nations have local governments with equal power.
Who would choose the membership of the committee? Our recent experience with the "cash for honour" scandal should have taught us that appointing legislators is ill advised.
Furthermore, a committee is an excellent scapegoat. It would not be beyond a flailing Prime Minister to sacrifice committee members if central government policy was to produce negative effects in England.
Should we also have an English committee in the Lords, to counteract the influence of peers from other parts of the union?
This suggestion would only deny a nation of more than 50 million people a genuine say over its own affairs. England deserves better than being carved up into regions, or smothered by committee government. Equal powers across the board would end this debate
Hugh, WINTER PARK, FL
A great deal of this "problem" has come about because historically, Scotland is very different to England. We are more left-wing , if you like, so that it finally hit home that New Labour was just another right-wing party for a right-wing England. We have more in common with social democratic Europe than this Anglo- American political system.
Cyril Mitchell, Dumfries, Dumfriesshire
"The problem could be resolved by the creation of an English
parliament alongside Westminster "
You got that bit right . ie An English Parliament , with the same rights and competencies as the Scottish Parliament , would be logical and fair . It is also most certainly what the English want as shown by repeated opinion polls.
ie a federal United Kingdom with country parliaments and an overarching United Kingdom parliament for specifically British affairs .
Your confused idea of EVOEM within the British parliament would not work . It is illogical , assymetric and would be pure poison to any continuing sense of Britishness since , in practice , Scots and Welsh MP's would be pernanently excluded from ministerial and prime ministerial office .
The Barnett Rules would also not be addressed .
The only logical and non-divisive way forward is for a federal UK with self rule of the component countries via their own parliaments and administrations .
John , London , England
Scots and Welsh may in theory become PM but the likelihood of them becoming so in a Cabinet were the majority of posts have an English remit is slim.
The Scots, Welsh and Irish will also say that they have the right to vote on English matters because those votes affect the Barnett Formula. Are you saying they don't?
It's disingenuous for you to say 'all the peoples of the kingdom will have a comparable control over their own affairs' when England will still be governed by the UK Government and subject to its policy-making and parliamentary timetable, not to mention the fact that its interests are British before they are English.
Gareth Young, Lewes, England