The first thing that needs to be said about the near-universally panned proposal for English votes for English laws we debated in the Commons this week is not, ‘why the rush?’ but ‘where’s the seriousness?’ If we want to have a constitutional settlement to a problem which the PM and Chris Grayling see as being such a large one, we need to arrive at a solution that’s going to stick.
Going about it the way the government currently intends to is not going to end up with a viable, long-term answer. And Tory MPs like David Davis who have made this point are quite right about how counter-productive rushing through EVEL is liable to be. It’s why my party is so opposed, but unfortunately there are plenty of other reasons too.
As I listened to English MPs in the chamber, as they decried the unfairness that requires EVEL, I agreed with much of what they said. But if the British constitution is currently as deficient as many make out, we’re not going to fix it with yet one more rushed job. Let’s do this properly. Let’s systematically think through what’s wrong and solve the problems. And solve them in ways that will last, and not cause yet more problems further down the line.
Let’s consider just the most obvious failings of EVEL, as currently proposed by the government. Why is there no guarantee that a reserved matter (something Westminster legislates on for one part of the country and which isn’t devolved) isn’t going to see a veto likewise given to the relevant MPs affected? That’s the logic of the PM’s position, as set out at PMQs last week, when he said ‘England must never be overruled again.’
Simply put, if Westminster – meaning all UK MPs – can no longer legislate for England, with English MPs given a veto, where is the principled, logical consistency? When legislation or statutory instruments touch on just one corner of the Kingdom, why don’t the MPs from that corner have the same veto these changes to standing orders would give to English colleagues? Why will Westminster still be able to legislate for any of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland only, with a UK-wide majority, but the Commons will no longer be able to do that for England?
Why is this being done merely via standing orders? A Labour or non-Tory coalition majority can sweep EVEL away on its first day in office. Yes, legislation will be trickier for the government, at both ends of parliament, but it would put everything on a firmer basis for the future.
If it’s a principle at stake, that the English should not be over-ruled, why is there to be a ‘double lock’, where you need both an English majority and a UK one? Why will a full UK majority for English-only legislation be required in the Commons too? Why isn’t it simply only English MPs throughout for English-only laws? It makes no sense, and it’s why unionists like me are very worried by yet more radical constitutional change, where the end of it all can’t yet safely be seen.
As I said in the Commons on Tuesday, I quite see the need for justice for England. These proposals don’t deliver it, but do risk harming further the integrity of the United Kingdom and will be deeply divisive within our sovereign parliament. They play into the separatist agenda. This, in so many senses, would be an unwise thing for the government to try and do next week.
Rt Hon Jeffrey Donaldson, MP, is DUP Chief Whip at Westminster
Comments