This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/02/english-votes-english-laws-tories-bring-forward-plans

The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 3 Version 4
Tories bring forward 'English votes for English laws' plan Labour and SNP outraged by Tory 'English votes for English laws' plan
(about 2 hours later)
The Conservatives have brought forward proposals to give English MPs a veto on laws and some tax measures that relate only to England, in a move condemned as a democratic outrage by Labour and the SNP. A Labour-led government with a majority reliant on Scottish MPs could struggle to pass legislation relating to hospitals and schools under Conservative plans to introduce English votes for English laws.
Under the proposals, if a law relates to matters that have otherwise been devolved to the other countries in the UK, English MPs will take part in potentially two new stages of consideration of legislation before its third reading. There will be no change to procedure in the House of Lords. The proposals brought forward by Chris Grayling, the leader of the Commons, would give English MPs two chances to veto legislation and clauses relating to devolved matters, including some tax measures.
Every MP will continue to have a vote on every bill, but English MPs will have a veto when debating matters that have been devolved to the Scottish parliament or the Welsh or Northern Ireland assemblies. On some occasions, English and Welsh MPs will decide together on legislation relating to matters that only affect their countries. Grayling said the new system would “end the anomaly that a majority of English MPs can be outvoted on matters which are devolved elsewhere”.
The Speaker will determine whether laws relate to citizens across the UK, English constituencies, or English and Welsh constituencies. But the plans were condemned as a democratic outrage by Labour and the SNP, whose leader, Nicola Sturgeon, said it was “a constitutional shambles – staggering in the extent of its hypocrisy and incoherence”. She also hinted it was a further step towards Scottish independence.
The process will also bring in a new way of counting votes on electronic tablets so that the clerks of the House of Commons will be able to find out immediately how many English MPs supported a particular measure. The plans could give rise to a situation where a Labour-led government had an overall majority in the Commons but the Conservatives had a majority of English MPs, who could veto laws relating to the NHS and schools – both devolved matters.
Chris Grayling, the leader of the Commons, said his plans would “end the anomaly that a majority of English MPs can be outvoted on matters which are devolved elsewhere”. One senior Conservative gave the example of a Labour government that had won some seats back in Scotland and wanted to abolish academies in England but found itself unable to do so because English Conservative MPs could have a majority to vote it down.
Once there had been further devolution of income tax and other powers to Scotland, a decisive vote on tax measures would be given to MPs whose constituents were affected by such changes, he said. A new government would be able to scrap the system, but the Conservatives are hoping the procedures will be sufficiently bedded in after five years so they would be difficult to reverse.
“They will give English MPs, and in some cases English and Welsh MPs, a power of veto to prevent any measure being imposed on their constituents against their wishes,” Grayling added. Under the proposals, if a law relates to matters that have been devolved to the other countries in the UK, English MPs will take part in two new stages of consideration of legislation.
However, Angela Eagle, his Labour opponent, accused the Conservatives of using procedural trickery to try to manufacture a larger majority than they have. The first would take the form of a grand committee in which only English MPs – or English and Welsh MPs – were able to vote on legislation relating to their nations before the third reading of a bill. The second process would be after the bill has passed through the Lords, when it would have to be approved by a double majority of all MPs as well as English MPs, or English and Welsh MPs.
The clerks of the Commons will adopt a new system of counting on electronic tablets so they will be able to find out immediately how many English MPs or English and Welsh MPs supported a particular measure.
The Speaker will determine whether laws relate to citizens across the UK, English constituencies, or English and Welsh constituencies. It is likely to apply only to a small number of laws each year and the veto is unlikely to be used in a parliament in which the Conservatives have both a majority overall and a majority of English MPs. In the last session, four out of 27 bills would have met the relevant criteria.
[This is] constitutional bilge and unworkable garbage
Angela Eagle, the shadow leader of the House of Commons, accused the Conservatives of using procedural trickery to try to manufacture a larger majority than they have.
She said the “rushed and partisan measures” had been cobbled together without the opportunity for proper scrutiny by the Commons.She said the “rushed and partisan measures” had been cobbled together without the opportunity for proper scrutiny by the Commons.
“These proposals risk the union, rather than saving it … The leader of the house is playing with fire. Why is he being so reckless?” she asked.“These proposals risk the union, rather than saving it … The leader of the house is playing with fire. Why is he being so reckless?” she asked.
Nicola Sturgeon, leader of the SNP, later described the proposals as “a constitutional shambles - staggering in the extent of its hypocrisy and incoherence”. Sir Gerald Kaufman, the father of the house, even claimed the measures “sound racist”. “Is it not a fact that this government [is] undermining not simply whatever differences there may be between outlooks from people of different countries within the United Kingdom, but this government is undermining the whole basis of British democracy right through from when Magna Carta was signed?” he asked.
“I hope there will be enough Conservative members of parliament who have sufficient love of this wonderful house not to cooperate in destroying it.”
Sturgeon has described the proposals as “all about cutting Scottish MPs out of votes which impact on Scotland and our budget”.
“I have been very clear that, at least in part, the level of support for independence will be determined by what the Tory government at Westminster does, as well as what the SNP government does,” she said. “And there is no question that the great disrespect shown to Scotland in these proposals is likely to have more people asking whether Westminster is capable of representing Scotland’s interests at all.”
Peter Wishart, chair of the Scottish affairs committee, told Grayling it was “constitutional bilge and unworkable garbage” that would create two classes of MPs.Peter Wishart, chair of the Scottish affairs committee, told Grayling it was “constitutional bilge and unworkable garbage” that would create two classes of MPs.
“You’re as well to stamp the Scottish MPs’ foreheads before we go into the lobbies,” he said. “This is the most dramatic and important constitutional statement since the days of Gladstone. Never before has there been such an assault on the rights of the members of this house to look after their constituents.”“You’re as well to stamp the Scottish MPs’ foreheads before we go into the lobbies,” he said. “This is the most dramatic and important constitutional statement since the days of Gladstone. Never before has there been such an assault on the rights of the members of this house to look after their constituents.”
Wishart said the Conservatives were doing their best to make sure Scotland became an independent country and encourage another referendum.Wishart said the Conservatives were doing their best to make sure Scotland became an independent country and encourage another referendum.
But, responding to the debate from Edinburgh, the Scottish secretary, David Mundell, said that it was “very silly politics to constantly threaten another referendum every time you don’t get what you want”.But, responding to the debate from Edinburgh, the Scottish secretary, David Mundell, said that it was “very silly politics to constantly threaten another referendum every time you don’t get what you want”.
Mundell, the only Conservative MP elected in Scotland in May, insisted that the plans would not diminish the role of Scottish MPs nor create two classes of MP.Mundell, the only Conservative MP elected in Scotland in May, insisted that the plans would not diminish the role of Scottish MPs nor create two classes of MP.
“People will see through the bluff and bluster and forced anger about these proposals and see that they are about fairness and balance. There is no downside for Scotland because there are no financial measures that Scottish MPs will be prevented from voting for.”“People will see through the bluff and bluster and forced anger about these proposals and see that they are about fairness and balance. There is no downside for Scotland because there are no financial measures that Scottish MPs will be prevented from voting for.”
One of the major points of contention is that the government is simply changing the standing orders of the House of Commons, passed by a single vote, rather than introducing legislation that would be subject to greater scrutiny.One of the major points of contention is that the government is simply changing the standing orders of the House of Commons, passed by a single vote, rather than introducing legislation that would be subject to greater scrutiny.
Alistair Carmichael, the Liberal Democrat former Scottish secretary, called for full primary legislation, saying the lack of proper scrutiny was an outrage.Alistair Carmichael, the Liberal Democrat former Scottish secretary, called for full primary legislation, saying the lack of proper scrutiny was an outrage.
But Mundell denied this set a dangerous precedent, arguing that primary legislation was not necessary for what was a procedural matter.But Mundell denied this set a dangerous precedent, arguing that primary legislation was not necessary for what was a procedural matter.
“The Commons has to adapt and adjust its processes to the circumstances it finds itself in. We’ve seen in the last 16 years major devolution within the UK and this is adapting procedures specifically to take account of English interests.”“The Commons has to adapt and adjust its processes to the circumstances it finds itself in. We’ve seen in the last 16 years major devolution within the UK and this is adapting procedures specifically to take account of English interests.”
The process will be subject to a vote in the Commons on 15 July, so the system is likely to be approved before MPs break for their summer recess.The process will be subject to a vote in the Commons on 15 July, so the system is likely to be approved before MPs break for their summer recess.