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.

Times Recommends

• The bright side of this winter rain
• Story behind the picture: Snow Leopard, 2008
• Times Charity Appeal: The Place2Be