We have to be ready to oppose David Cameron’s attempt to bounce parliament into adopting the idea of English votes for English laws (EVEL). The answer to the question posed by Tam Dalyell when devolution to Scotland was first proposed – why should Scottish MPs vote in the Westminster parliament on issues that are devolved to Scotland, the so-called West Lothian Question - is really simple: if you devolve powers to one part of the UK, you have to devolve powers to all of the other parts. Lets be clear about this: EVEL is not devolution. In Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London, devolution has involved shifting power away from the centre to newly established institutions which are elected by proportional representation. EVEL meets neither of these criteria. It is simply a party political ploy to exploit the fact that the Tories have been reduced to being an English only party, unable to win seats many seats in Scotland or Wales. EVEL could allow the Tories to hold on to power in England, even if they lost it in Westminster. Its a recipe for the further break up of the UK. But it’s odds-on that they will keep on banging that Little England drum because it’s the only tune they have these days and they love the sound of it. What we are witnessing is the withering of the once mighty Conservative Party into an insular National Party of England. Devolution for England must involve new institutions and a fair voting system. So an English parliament then? I’m not so sure. The whole point of devolution is to move power away from the centre, as we have seen in the Scottish parliament. They’ve taken powers from the Westminster parliament, which represents 64m people, and now administer directly to the 5m inhabitants of Scotland. Power and accountability have moved closer to the people Devolving power from Westminster to an English parliament would not produce the same effect. The population of England is 53m. Creating a new parliament would not bring power and accountability closer to the people of the north or the south west, it would merely shift the centre. An English parliament is not really devolution – England is simply too big. Devolving powers to the English shires is a non-starter too as few of them have a big enough tax base to be able to realise the potential of devolution in terms of doing expressing different priorities to those of central government. The idea of devolving power to cities is fine if you live in a city. What about the many people who live in rural areas? It seems to me that the most sensible response to the West Lothian Question is to devolve powers to the nine English regions, not least because most of them have a population of around 4m, giving them a big enough tax base to be able to enjoy the benefits of devolution. Unless devolved institutions can raise and spend enough of their own money, they are not sufficiently autonomous. This doesn’t necessarily mean nine new parliament buildings and a whole extra level of politicians. Labour are already talking about abolishing the House of Lords and replacing it with a Senate of Regions and Nations. Our reformed upper chamber could do its job of revising government legislation while Westminster sits, then reconvene as regional assemblies while MPs are off on their holidays. Whether it’s regional assemblies or a national parliament, we must insist that devolution for England involves moving powers away from the centre. Cameron’s EVEL plans offer no real change for the English – they’re simply a shameless attempt to ring fence England for the Tories.
Posted on: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 11:16:48 +0000