Nick Robinson's Newslog

Nick,
If this idea is even remotely a vote winner, then we just need to wait a week or so and it will be pinched by the current government - and they will explain how it works!

'If so, wouldn't Labour ministers refuse to implement what was passed or, in practice, seek to bypass MPs and make more and more changes by administrative fiat (more possible than you might think)?'

I thought the received wisdom was that MPs had been increasingly marginalised for years anyway...

Answers:

Q1: If Gordon Browns policies for schools & hospitals are sound, he would not need to worry who has the majority. Scots get more from the health service than the English do, because Scots MPs vote on Scots matters.

Q2: In matters that concern England only.

Q3: If Government Ministers made changes by administrative fiat out of spite, it would show them up for what they are; not fit for office.

Q4: Malcom Rifkind is looking for fairness to enter into British politics. All he is doing is echoing what I as an ordinary Englishman hear "on the street" every day.

Nick, you keep asking if it would affect Labour ministers powers. If it did do that, it would be the same for whatever party is in power. I cannot see how it would be detrimental to the running of the UK for English MPs to vote on English matters.

By the way, Labour is not in power. New Labour is in power.

"Wouldn't this proposal (if it were in operation now) mean that Gordon Brown had no Commons majority for Labour's key priorities "schoolsnhospitals"?"

Oh dear, what a shame. Rifkind's proposals are far from an ideal solution, but they at least would bring home to Labour the consequences of its devolution programme. The UK used to be a unitary state. It is now a dangerous half-way house between unitarism and federalism. We need one or the other if the UK is to survive.

If we don't get out of this current mess then the UK will eventually be ripped apart. English resentment at the current arrangements is building and Labour would be extremely foolish to let it get up enough of a head of steam to endanger the union. It is getting perilously near that point at the moment.

All good questions, Nick. The nuts and bolts of the proposal definitely need to be made clearer.

Frankly, the only way I can see to solve the West Lothian question is to allow England (and, presumably Wales and Northern Ireland) to have a devolved assembly with the same powers as the Scottish one. Let Westminster set the budgets for the devolved assemblies and then allow them to spend the money how they liked.

What that would do to Westminster, I don't know, but I can't help thinking that any other system, such as differing voting rights for MPs based on where their constituency is, would be impractical, unpopular and still unfair.

The same question is asked by the BBC website 'Have Your Say' blog.

The answer from most English people posting on there is quite unequivocal ... an English Parliament.

It is not complicated, except for 'Unionists' who appear to be mostly Scottish MP's at Westminster.

Whether or not these politicians want to face up to that, I believe we really are in the last days of the 'United Kingdom'.

Devolution for Scotland?, if they vote for it then they should have it, and they should then need to find room for all of the MPs that will no longer be at Westminster and we can be rid of this "Scottish" government that we currently have.

The current system is just unfair and something must be done about it,
Foe a labour Minister to state that the Conservatives are threatening the union when they themselves started this process and did not finish it properly , is probably the most rediculous thing I have ever heard from any minister of any political colour. Sort it out or the resentment will grow and then we will not have a union at all.

And the answers to your questions Nick are mainly yes but only if the Tories have a majority in England what is wrong with that? is that not democracy!!

This year, turkeys are expected to vote in overwhealming numbers for Christmas.

Good questions Nick, they just highlight that it's not going to happen. It's also another very British fudge.

If we are lucky (given that the whole devolution thing was ill thought through in the first place), then the end point of all this will be a federation of British states. Scotland, England , Wales and Northern Ireland all having devolved powers to greater or lesser degrees. Amongst other things, the word federation is the sticking point of course.

If we are unlucky then independence is the end point with all parts of the kingdom being diminished. Keep sticking our heads in the sand and all Alex Salmond has to do is continue quietly driving home his wedges. Eventually the chasm between Scotland and England will be self evident. The resulting split will inevitably generate more heat in Wales and Northen Ireland.

We are all the better for being one nation. Forget "regional devolution" it's beaurocracy looking for a reason to exist. From where we are now, an equitable settlement based on national devolution makes sense.

The stalking horse that is the "Grand Committee" may at least shed light on a festering sore that needs treatment.

Alternatively, why should a Government in a minority in England be a position to impose their policies?

Is this not exactly how the Scottish constituencies felt when a Tory majority in England imposed its policies on Scotland during the Eighties and Early Nineties?

If the correct solution for Scotland, was to give Scots a Parliament to cover domestic issues how can it be defensible for such a Parliament to be denied to the English?

Nick

Exactly the same applies to the Welsh and Scottish Committes/Assemblies which already exist. Bluntly having started the problem they have to live with it!

This Government already bypasses the Houses of Parliament wherever they can and it is convenient but at least the English would have an equal voice with the other constiuent parts of the UK.

The other alternative is to get rid of devolution!

Roger

The answer is simple. The Labour government would have to put forward measures on schools and hospitals which the majority of English MPs support i.e. the ones voted in by English voters who use the schools and hospitals. Specifically, they do not need to worry about the views of the Scottish MPs whose constituents have no interest.

its to sorted out once and for all !!
english have a right to there own back yard ! can you see the scots if we could decide for there health and all the things that have been changed

I think that is exactly what he means. At the moment Labour policies affecting England only are only implemented because of the large number of MPs in Scotland, despite the vast majority of MPs in England being Conservative.

England wants Conservative policies and are being forced Labour ones (pro tem). So YES - If Labour is not hypocritical (They devolved Scotland to keep power there indefinitely - oops they underestimated Scottish Nationalism and did the same in Wales (remember they only required a simple majority in Wales to push through Devolution - had they been sincere and offered Devolution on the same basis as Scotland, Wales would not have it))

So we either have yet another Parliament (English) with another set of elections/ members/ administration or we simply have current English MPs voting on English matters only. In either case we will have the position that Labour loses power over England - which is what the English as a whole want, and that of course is why they won't do it.

For the past 10 years the English have had a Scottish PM and chancellor.

Foreign policy decisions have been made by an American.

Domestic policy decided by Europe.

We are about to sign up to a new European treaty with the previously promised referendum quietly ignored.

Politicians wonder why the English electorate are increasingly apathetic!!!

It looks fair and tidy but wouldn't automatically work in practice. If these proposals were law and we then had an election result like 1974, Labour proposals for England could be voted down by an English Conservative majority at Westminster.

I'm sure those questions will give the honourable member a difficult time, but I wonder how much you'd truely gain by asking them.

It is of course true that the Conservatives would benefit from this, just as it is true that Labour benefit without it.

Many issues including those raised in your 3rd and 4th question will surface if such changes were made, but their is already a fundamental issue:
Scottish MPs can vote entirely politically regarding English issues without any risk of being held to account for it by the people who elected them.

I think the question that needs answering, and which no one who is argueing against it is willing to answer is why it is right for Scottish decisions to only be made by Scotland representatives, and yet wrong for English decisions to be made by Englands representatives.

Not only is people voting on something they have no involvement or interest in wrong, it has ALREADY been abused when Scottish MPs voted to bring in Tuition fees in the UK while they were not in Scotland.
Sadly it seems we cannot trust MPs to decide when it appropriate for them to vote.

It would mean that it is possible that while Labour has a majority in the UK government, they may have a minority government in England.

It should be remembered that Labour introduced devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and conveniently forgot England. In the current status with an english parliament, Labour may have power over the UK as a whole for foreign policy and defence, but may not govern any individual country.

Clearly the current devolved arrangements give a disproportionate power to Scottish MPs, MSPs and therefore Scottish voters. Measures are passed on exlcusively English matters solely through the support of Scottish MPs. This would always have been the case with the Labour Government but inequality exists because now Scottish MSPs can decide some matters without reference to English MPs. The logical solution would be an English Parliament. The Tories are seeking to provide a solution that would maximise discomfort for Labour. But Labour did start this and as you sow so you will reap.

This Conservative proposal is a cynical political positioning policy intended to mislead people who care about England into voting for the Conservative and Unionist Party.
The Union is dissolving in the hearts of the people of its Nations and we urgently need reasoned consideration of a new and fair Constitutional framework.
This should be done within a proper Constitutional Convention and not just by career politicians seeking their Party's advantage.
Robin Tilbrook,
English Constitutional Convention. englishconstitutionalconvention

How sad it is, I really feel sad that a party who say they talk for all the people want to divide us.
I'm English, and find myself depressed that a party who seek power, look around for negative elements of our society, and try and pit us against each other. They don't tell us of all that is positive with the Union, just scavenge for votes in the dustbin of race.

Like so many others, this is a problem created by the Government which others are now seeking the answers to. Whichever way you look at the arguments for/against the Tories' proposals on only English MPs voting on subjects which only affect England, there has to be an answer whereby those who are responsible for making decisions are accountable for them too. If the Scottish MPs were accountable to the electorate for the decision on tuition fees, then would they have for them for English students? Maybe, maybe not. However the absence of such accountability is a major failure of the governance of the UK and it needs to be addressed, somehow.

You have posed questions many English voters have asked; those who wonder how a minority (English) Govt can force through policies for which no mandate has been given; something which cannot be achieved in the other parts of the UK.
In answer to your specific questions:
1. Mr Brown does not hold a majority of seats in England; he therefore has no popular English mandate for his proposals.
2. The so-called "grand committee" is the duly elected English Government and one which should be acknowledged.
3. This will only serve to confirm, in the mind of the English voter, the need for a truely transparent and empowered English parliament. Attempts to run the country through the back door will lead to judicial review and a lawful resolution of the issue
4. Possibly.

The English Assembly genie was let out of the bottle once devolved powers were (rightly) given to the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland assemblies. It will not be put back and must be recognised by the institution of an fully empowered English assembly.

You are making the mistake (deliberately, no doubt) of taking this as literal. I don't think that for one second the Conservatives expect this to be adopted - for many of the reasons you note.

Their point is to draw attention to (and raise anger towards) the fact that Scottish MPs are voting through legislation for England which Scotland rejects. The result of which now sees that UK taxes pay for.......
1. Leading anti-cancer drugs in Scotland, but not England
2. Tuition fees in Scotland, but not England
3. Foundation Hospitals rejected in Scotland, but not England
4. Full pay rise for nurses in Scotland, but not England

If this bias was based on another criteria (social class, race?) then the BBC would be up in arms. So why not when the English are being wronged?

Whilst Sir Malcolm's analysis of the problems presented by devolution is sound, his preferred solution – a "Grand Committee" within the existing House of Commons – is fundamentally flawed. As you point out, Nick, the practical effect of his scheme would be to prevent the Labour Government from legislating on its key manifesto pledges, unless they could get the support of the Conservatives.

As I see it, the only way around the so-called 'West Lothian question' is to establish a separate English Parliament.

Unfortunately, such a development would be unlikely to attract the necessary level of cross-party support in Westminster. Would existing Members of Parliament really vote to reduce their legislative powers?

More importantly, would there really be the appetite for a devolved English administration beyond the political village? The rejection of John Prescott's grand plans for regional assemblies was, in part, due to the feeling that it would merely add another layer of bureaucracy (and expense) to an already-bloated public sector.

Perhaps the only way to address these concerns would be to establish an English Parliament as part of a much wider programme of constitutional reform. A move towards a federal United Kingdom may ultimately be the best way of preserving a currently fragile union.

The Westminster Parliament could maintain responsibility for the big national issues, such as defence, foreign policy, energy and security. The number of MPs would be reduced to take into account the diminished responsibilities of the House of Commons. The devolved administrations would then handle everything else: schools, hospitals, public transport, and so on.

If this was accompanied by a reorganisation of local authorities to end the fragmentation between district, town and county councils – bringing about considerable economies of scale – then maybe, just maybe, people could be convinced that federalism made legal, financial and managerial sense.

Gordon Brown promised a big constitutional consultation when he became Prime Minister. So far, he's merely proposed to tinker around the edges. Would he have the courage to suggest such a radical shake-up of our national government – or would he, to use the media's phrase of the month, "bottle it"?

Nick,

The same argument could also apply to purely Scottish measures, and would in throry apply when there is a Conservative government in the UK and for the sake of argument a Labour one in Scotland. It wasn't an issue for Labour of course when they controlled both the Scottish and UK parliaments.Maybe they thought devolution had bought off enough Scots to ensure a Labour majority in perpetuity.

Nick - as an incredibly well paid journalist, and an expert on UK politics surely you know that Labour have a majority of English seats?

If Labour can't get its own MPs to support its policies then they need to change the policies- not ship in MPs who aren't affected by the changes!!

Hey Nick

heres a great wee idea son:
Scottish independence!!

p.s. on a similar point. There was a Scottish grand committee when Rifkind and his pals imposed the Poll tax and other experimental policies on the Scottish pople backed only by ENGLISH MPs votes completley against the will of the Scots.

This will not work, I refer you above to the only viable solution

ALBA GU BRAITH!

"Wouldn't this proposal (if it were in operation now) mean that Gordon Brown had no Commons majority for Labour's key priorities "schoolsnhospitals"?"

Yes, that's exactly what it would mean. But how is that a bad thing? The simple fact is, Gordon Brown actually doesn't have a Commons majority for anything that affects England only. Surely it would be fair if the voting system reflected that?

I do love how people love to portray majoritarian politics as unfair on the grounds that "it's the wrong sort of majority" - British object to EU majorities, Scots object to English majorities, English object to British majorities, Irish Nationalists object to Unionist majorities, Unionists to all-Ireland majorities, Daily Mail readers object to the feckless, ignorant majorities, the Cornish object to pretty much everyone from Devon Northwards.

I'm not sure it really counts as democracy if your starting point is a quick exercise in gerrymandering to assure your position.

Actually, in an ideal world, you would probably want people with no vested interest voting on the issues of consequence so the real arguments could get a hearing. Unfortunately, as this is a sub-ideal world where even those with no direct vested interest would find back-room deals to bolster the own position on other matters, we have to make do with the current set-up.

Nick, you ask:

Wouldn't this proposal (if it were in operation now) mean that Gordon Brown had no Commons majority for Labour's key priorities "schoolsnhospitals"?

As the BBC's political editor, don't you already know this? I don't know off the top of my head, but surely the Conservative party would only have a majority if they had more MPs from English constituencies than either New Labour or the Lib Dems? I don't understand how you can ask the question without already knowing the answer.

And even if this were true, it's called democracy.

Nick I know I go on about this but the "Scotish problem" is really a subset of the more fundamental problem in the UK which is that our electoral system gives us the most unrepresentative democracy in the world. The effect of devolution has just served to heighten the sense of unfairness in representation that many others of us feel. Especially if you are one of the majority 64% that didn't want this administration and still get their policies forced on you.

I for one hope that the Scots gain independence as it may bring forward the chances of wholesale electoral reform and give all of us ( whichever party you support) a government which is more fairly based on the expressed will of the people rather than as now, the largest minority takes all.

On a more topical note it might also help England have BST all the year round. The Scots will then have no basis to complain as they and England will be separate countries, free to go their own way in this and many other things.

One possible impact of separation that I have never heard commented on is that large numbers of Civil Service jobs would necessarily be relocated back from Scotland to England as it would clearly be unacceptable for such work to be performed by citizens of a separate country. Has anyone worked out the impact of this?

There are only two outcomes that would be reasonably fair and equitable; fully independent nations, or a federal UK including either an English parliament or regional English parliaments in addition to a UK government. I think England would find it difficult to accept Scotland as a truly equal partner in such an arrangement though, due to the difference in population sizes.

The current balance is not right, but there's a good chance that any form of English parliament would have been turned down by the English electorate ten years ago if they'd been offered it, so I'm not sure it was possible for Labour to do better at the time.

A situation where the sitting PM did not command a majority in England would not be that different from the situation in countries that have a directly elected president - like the US. There it is not uncommon for the sitting president to have no majority in either house.

The solution of a grand committee is certainly not ideal; however, it is far better than the current situation where people vote on policies that will not be implemented in the area they were elected to represent. I personally remain extremely irritated by the fact that English students in Scotland must pay fees that Scottish nor in fact EU students must pay. Despite there being no tax difference between Scotland and England. The Scottish students are getting something for nothing here, but worse still the English are the second class citizens of Europe.

Devolution by the Labour party is a huge mess, and something will have to be done to resolve it. It is interesting that the SNP are happy to take money from the Barnett formula, and also from such areas as tuition fees from English students; yet also want independence which would result in less income for Scotland. The arguments about additional income from oil are disingenuous, oil revenues would actually have minimal additional benefit to an independent Scottish economy.

I think that many of your questions are wrong because you have failed to recognise the change to British politics that would result from Sir Malcom Rifkin's proposals.

Currently, in order to form a stable government a party needs a majority of UK MPs.

If the change proposed by the Sir Malcolm were put into effect, a party would need to have both a majority of English MPs and a majority of UK MPs to form a stable government (a majority of Scots MPs would not be required).

Accordingly, Labour could continue to govern the country on the basis of their current numbers of UK and English MPs. Going forward, they would need to increasingly focus on English constituencies to ensure that they are able to form stable governments.

They will struggle in Southern England, which could lead to that ellusive alliance between Labour and the Liberal Democrats finally taking place.

The Scots would feel marginalised, which would play into SNP hands.

Alas, these are the consequences of devolution that Labour foolishly pursued to serve short term political interests.

Finally someone has spotted the 'elephant in the room' and is openly questioning the unique unfairness of the current situation and no guesses that it would be a Tory (and better still a Scottish Tory).

And he is absolutely right to do so. Not only is the current situation unfair, it favours Labour. After all with only one Scottish MP, the Conservatives have nothing to lose and much to gain from this debate. It is likely to be a vote winner and highlights Labours reliance on Scottish MP's to get through unpopular policies that only affect the English.

Labours only chance on this (accepting that they won't push through PR before the next election) is to offer to seriously rethink the Barnet Formula, but that won't prove popular in Scotland and is likely to lead to less Labour MP's.

This could be a 'lose - lose' situation for Gordon!

John Constable has hit the nail on the head. An English Assembly with powers identical to those of the Scottish Parliament - Wales should be brought up to parity along with Northern Ireland.
If not there is the problem of those areas where we have issues that are not so clear cut as "England Only" e.g. University Tuition Fees which are levied in England on UK students not just English ones.

Nick,

You raise some interesting questions, and it's encouraging that political correspondents are actually asking such questions, because it means they're finally taking the complaints about a massive democratic deficit in England seriously. Unfortunately, you should have been asking these questions 10 years ago, as many of us were, when this whole mess was conceived. As others have wisely observed, the best answer is "I wouldn't start from here."

We now have different powers in different forms for each of the 4 constituent parts of the UK, which if left unchanged is a huge step towards the dissolution of the Union, but for some reason, England has to put up with its legislation being pushed through by a rump of Scottish Labour MPs whose constituents won't even have to live with the tuition fees/foundation hospitals they're so keen to foist on us.

The trouble with your questions is that you're trying to fit English self-government into a UK-parliament-shaped hole, and it naturally doesn't fit very well. As I see it, there are 3 main options for levelling the playing field:

1. Rescind the Scottish and Welsh devolution (NI is a special case, I think), and return to a genuine UK government - This won't happen.

2. Give England devolved powers, either as a whole or regionally - We saw how unpopular regional assemblies were, due to a general lack of regional identity, but an English assembly with the same powers as the Scottish one might do the trick, although it would be another expensive talking shop.

3. Operate an English government in some form at Westminster, using the MPs already elected to the UK parliament. The English government, if different from the UK government, would have its own ministers and offices, and a chunk of parliamentary time would be allocated to English legislation - Not perfect, but the best option. As an immediate step in this direction, a convention could be established (Parliament likes conventions) that only English MPs would debate and vote on purely English matters.

This isn't a new issue - Tam Dalyell posed the West Lothian question well over 30 years ago. The shocking thing is that this morally bankrupt government charged ahead without answering it, or seemingly without even understanding it.

All very well - just a pity when Mr Rifkind was not so concerned about "fairness" when the poll tax was inflicted on Scotland by English Tory MPs - while he was Scottish Secretary.

Bluntly, the answer to the first question is "Yes". Though whilst I'm not naive enough to think that any seat in the house of parliament presents a fair and even opportunity to any party at a general election, the simple fact is that any conservative majority in English only seats is derived from a mandate from the people who voted for them, so I'm not really sure whether you can complain about it.

Another question could have been - what is Malcolm Rifkinds agenda here? Is he after an 'english' majority in the commons? Or is he genuinely reflecting the mood of some (the majority?) of the people? Maybe it's both, but either way, the was an inevitablitity about this debate - it has been brewing since the devolution process began and we should have no objection to it being raised.

One of the things this debate really does highlight is how many people in the country do not understand the value of the union. I make no bones that I am one of them. I'm more than willing to be convinced that it's worth maintaining on any grounds, but Gordon Brown would have to present a very powerful argument to make people like myself understand why it is important that Scottish MPs are allowed to vote on 'english only' issues that will have little or no impact on their own constituents, but my MP can't do the same for Scotland in similar circumstances. Surely when all the politics is swept aside you are simply left with that question - simply: Is it fair?

Labour, Tory, Lib Dem... I don't trust any of them anymore on anything to do with anything that requires being moral.

The correct position would be to remove all of the anomalies.

The Welsh, Scottish and Nothern Ireland devolved governments do not have the same powers, it would have to be amended so that they did (increasing to the common denominator rather than decreasing it would appear the only viable possibility).

There would then have to be an all England assembly or perhaps large regional English assemblies - Wessex, Mercia, Northumbria, Anglia -(smaller regional assemblies have been rejected already). It would have to have the same powers as the Scottish Parliament.

If these devolved assemblies had real powers and had them enshrined in a written constitution that could only be changed by referendum then the mockery that is the House of Lords could be done away with as this would then be the true check and balance of the Commons.

Of course all of this is pretty radical. It would require brave politicians to push it through. So we probably won't get it; just the usual hotch-potch muddle-through 'solution' instead.

Before the Scottish Parliament there was a Scottish Grand Committee.

This was abandoned as being unworkable.

The Scottish Parliament replaced the Scottish Grand Committee.

Why are no mainstream politicians proposing the obvious solution for the current constitutional mess.

A Federal UK

English Parliament in the House of Commons

and elected British Parliament in the House of Lords.

- All the great ideas are very, very simple !

None of your questions are any different from how Scotland and Wales are now governed - one set of MPs for specified domestic affairs, one for national ones. The national cabinet has no say now on Scottish "healthneducation", what is the problem losing the say over its English equivalent. The difference is that an English Committee rather than regional government would avoid the duplicated cost of a fancy new building and another layer of politicians - quite a positive difference. Think positively and stop defending the indefensible satus quo.

Nick,
Your questions are based on the old paradigm- not the one that has now been established by the creation of separate assemblies with devolved power.
The system of "States Rights" established in the US effectively proscribed those issues that are justifiably and appropriately dealt with by local State administrations, and those by national government.
To your points - health and schooling are properly local issues ideally addressed with local taxes - raised in England, Wales and Scotland.
Defence, foreign policy etc are National issues to be addressed by national governement
The US has clearly demonstrated that whatever else their failings such devolution of responsibility has hardly resulted in a weaker national consciousness - it has however resulted in greater engagement in local politics - of which we need a good deal more IMV

Another Question:

What would happen in the Lords?

Wouldn't this proposal mean that Gordon Brown may have no majority for his 'schoolsnhospitals' priorities?

Possibly. But then he doesn't have a majority for those 'priorities' in Scotland (I bet he'll keep that quiet in his election communications). If he doesn't have a English majority for his English policies, perhaps he should be prepared to compromise on them.

Like most people I'm BRITISH, I'm not english - thats just a language. I'm not european - that's just a bunch of foreigners who I don't haven't anything in common with.

I'm as proud of Devon as any Scot or Welsh person is. To my mind we - England/Scotland/Wales/NI are in this together as British subjects and brothers. It is down to Blair who has potentially split us up with the devolution rubbish. An English parliament would just create another pit to through money down unnecessarily which no-one wants.

One trait of Britishness is an idea of fairness, this is currently not happening. So either we have to stop certain MPs from voting which is a bodge in my mind or take back certain powers from these assemblies or parliaments and become as one again with equal money being spent on us all.

How can we have senior politicians holding office if they are not accountable to the people? Brown, Darling, Brown, etc. THEY SHOULD GO unless they repeal these powers and restore democracy.

These are all relevant questions but there is really nothing difficult about them.

The democratic deficit which sprang up when devolution was enacted is real and whilst it might not be convenient that the Labour government is only able to govern with MPs from Scotland, it is true, and having heard so much in the 80s about Scotland being governed by an English government they hadn't voted for, it seems odd for ministers who fought fro fairness for Scotland to argue against fairness for England.

Nick Robinson implies that the proposal lacks detail and so is flawed - it really doesn't need any detail other than to lay out a list of legislative areas where devolved administrations have competence and then produce a list of MPs from constituencies that are covered by the devolved administrations. Those MPs on the list would then no longer be entitled to vote on legislation in the lists. That way, legislation is passed by the appropriate representatives - if the constituents don't like it, the representatives can be held to account. At present, MPs vote on matters which have no impact on their constituents, and constituents see legislation passed into law by people who, in their terms, are unelected representatives of a central executive.

The prospect of yet another layer of politicians is not great – a clean and simple solution would be to have a single body of MPs who are all equal. They vote as a whole for legislation that covers the UK, and in country groups for those areas which have already been devolved to the current administrations – simple and cheap.

"Wouldn't it mean that Labour had no majority for...?"

Yes, Nick, it's called democracy.

I realise this is a new and radical concept for England, but I think it might make a nice change. Don't you?

Totally unfair response, Nick. Why do you not recognise the constitutional problem Labour created and never resolved? Why not query how and why they let the Barnett formula become increasingly inequitable? Do you not appreciate how appalling the prevailing situation is and the urgent need for it to be remedied?
Also:
1) Who cares? Brown's NHS and school initiatives have achieved little but wasted vast resources (taxpayer's money) and built up a huge PFI debts!
2) It would at least be democratic if those elected by, and accountable to, English constituents alone set the purely English agenda.
3) Surely if Labour ministers resorted to such an 'administrative fiat' they would rightly consign their Labour Government to a massive defeat at the next election.
4) As in 2) above, Rifkind's idea would at least be democratic.

eerrrr..... why is it not workable just because Labour don't as you put it have a majority of seats?
Labour have a majority of seats anyway.....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/vote2005/html/england.stm

Mr Rifkind cannot answer your questions, nor can his colleagues, because like the earlier proposal for 'English Votes for English Laws' the Grand Committee will not be workable. It seems likely therefore that, in power, the Tories would rarely if ever use it. Since the UK Parliament draws up UK Bills, most Bills that are intended to deal with England have some UK clauses tacked on so there are few English Bills. So this proposal is just a bid for English support which now runs at 50& for and English Parliament, however elected. England needs more than a Grand Committee. Scotland, Wales and N Ireland each have an Executive and First Minister(s). Unless the EGC elects a First Minister there will be no one to speak for England or frame Bills for England alone. Eventually the English will demand full devolution as in Scotland - but by then it may be too late to save the Union, if it is worth saving.

Tony Blair changed the mother of Parliaments into the mother-in-law. Rifkind's make over will not make her any more agreeable. Whether they like it or not the Westminster Club has to accept that a separate legislature for England is the only way to give parity to the overtaxed, under represented English.

The federal UK is the obvious solution but it is to late. The Conservatives want to break up the union and will suceed. They have spun the myth that labour did not win the last election in England and only rule through Scottish MPs this is not true but people believe it re John Portwood. the bitterness generated on both sides of the border will eventually lead to the end of the UK

Nick, surely the questions you pose strike at the heart of the nonesense being spoken by Rifkind?

All we see is an interminable list of daft ideas to address the West Lothian Question, whether it is Labour's failed Regionalisation plan (kicked out by the North East in 2004 by 79%); English Laws on English Measures - Lord Baker's Idea, An English Grand Committee Rifkind's idea or the option I and the English Public best support the establishment of an English Parliament.

You know that the BBC in its own polling found 60% support for an English Parliament, and we don't get any sensible debate on this option either from yourself or anyone from the BBC, because everyone is so paranoid that this will break up the UK.

Personally I believe those who believe that are wrong. In fact I would argue the reverse will be the case. If the issue of West Lothian is not acted upon and fast, the mounting resentment of the English at being sidelined and shouted at by people such as Rifkind and Brown will result in a serious and perhaps unpredictable backlash.

Why can't we have the same debate Scotland and Wales had? Why do we have to have a string of pathetic botches served up by each of the three Briticentric Parties, all to appease the Union at the expense of English democracy?

How can it be right that England a country of 50 million people has no political executive of its own, yet Scotland with five million people has? How can it be right that Gordon Brown is First Minister of England when no one in England voted for him? How can it be right that Scottish MPs can vote through something like Top Up Fees, overturn the English majority and reject top up fees for Scotland to boot?

Nick, why isn't the BBC having a much fairer debate on this? Why does the BBC keep with the editorial line that A Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly are good, but an English Parliament is bad. Isn't this pure hypocrasy and demonstrates for all to see that the BBC is little more than an organ of the Labour government?

If this was happening in any other country, I could guarantee the BBC would be waffling on about abuse of democracy, and banana republics, but because it is England, and somehow England doesn't count you can fiddle about asking equally daft questions about something that should be debated nationally so all the issues can come out on the table.

Yes of course Rifkind's model is a mess and won't work. Niether will EVOEM, and niether will regions. Now can we talk about why an English Parliament is so objectionable, seeing as it was so right for the people of Scotland?

What is democracy if it isn't representation by the people of the people. No it is not right that post devolution Alexander elected in Scotland manages devolved English Transport, it's a bit like Sarkosy taking over the Home Office - he has no right to be there and isn't elected by anyone in the country he seeks to serve. That is the fact. If Nick you cannot see any problem with this, then I (frankly) despair of the BBC and the sooner it is wound up and people who recognise the fundamentals of democracy and free speech replace the current incumbents the better.

Can the BBC now start to open up this debate with the public and expose the fudges we have received from the main three parties as the non starters they are. The only possible way forward for England is to look at a Federal Structure where England is given the same courtesy of a public debate and referendum. We can waste hours on "what if scenarios". What if England was given a Parliament exclusive to itself, so that the people could elect their own politicians to run English affairs? Radical, not really, before Labour screwed it up we had something like this, now it is passed we have to give England back her own voice. Question is will the BBC let the English speak, or are there too many vested interests keen to silence us?

Dearie me, Nick. What are the BBC paying you for? Now pay attention. At the 2005 British general election, Labour won 286 seats in England to the Tories' 194. That means Labour won 54% (yes, that's a majority) of seats in England. You are probably getting confused with the share of the vote in England, where Labour got 35.4% to the Tories, 35.7% (which gave them 36.6% of English seats - roughly proportional, as it happens). If you'd like PR for British general elections, then that'd be worth writing about. In the meantime, stick with the facts.

Something needs to be done as the current system is a mess and plain unfair. (BTW I'm Welsh and live in Scotland so have no real axe to grind.)

I dont think English votes or and English grand committee is the answer because some measures in the House of Commons apply to the UK, some to England and Wales and others to England, there is also the issue of the knock on effects from the Barnett formula. Either of these can only be a stop gap to a large overhaul of the system.

How about making the Commons an English Parliament and a fully elected House of Lords could become the UK chamber with responisbility for foreign policy, defence and setting the budgets for the regional Parliaments. Of course the four regional parliaments should have the same powers in a such a scenario.

In answer to all the (presumably scottish) moans about the imposition of the poll tax in Scotland. The same poll tax was then imposed throughout the UK. This is very different from the a Scottish Elite ruling England whilst giving it's own people.
And in addition Nick, Scottish university's charging only English students tuition fees (and not Scots or Eu students) is the most blatant form of racism imaginable.

Steven Uncles's idea of a federal UK with an English Parliament in the House of Commons and an elected British Parliament in the House of Lords overseeing UK - wide issues is a good one that merits further exporation and discussion.

So it has no chance.

Nick, you're slightly missing the point.

Firstly, such a system wouldn't be introduced under the current Labour Government. It would only be introduced under a Tory Government when any of the problems you describe would be masked.

And if the system would then fall to pieces disasterously when the Labour Party next got into power, is that something that the Tories would greatly worry about?

Secondly, it's clearly an issue that has to be addressed. Outside the Westminster in-crowd it's a massive vote winner.

If the model used for the English Grand Committee was the same as the Scots one before devolution, it would not have a majority of opposition MPS as the goverment of the day always had a majority on the Grand Committee. The Scottish Grand Committee was always balanced with english tory MPs when they were in government

What happens if the Government loses a confidence motion in the English "Grand Committee" but still has the confidence of Parliament as a whole?

Do we only re-elect English seats? Do Scottish MPs (without a vote in dissolving Parliament) get bounced into an early election?

Or, if there is no mechanism for a confidence motion in the "Grand Committee" then what mechanism does it have to force Ministers to do its bidding?

While this might sound like a populist idea to an opportunistic Opposition it's hardly going to survive the rigorous examination it'll get in an election campaign is it?

It seems to me that the solution to the west lothian question is clear. Abolish the Scottish parliament.

I dont remember anyone in England getting a vote in the "referendum" that paved the way for that institution yet it quite clearly was a matter that affects english constituencies. The Scottish parliament (and welsh and northern ireland assemblies) was created as a result of a con job and should be scrapped at the first opportunity.

Responding to Jack Chapman's comment on the Tory party trying to do something about an english voice for english people - He ends with
"but, then we all know why that is!"
Well Jack I dont know why that is - could you elucidate.
I grew up under a Tory government and I cannot believe that they are any WORSE that a labour govt., and would probably be a hell of a lot better.
What I want is to get out of Europe entirely - Why' because the Brits have traditionaly been an island people; by nature we're reserved and tribal we've never been particularly friendly towards outsiders: we always kept our distance and that was a primary reason why weve stayed friends with each other for so long.
Familiarity breeds contempt - we would do well to remember that.
When suddenly were a multi-cultural society? - in short time - and in such large numbers, our little island and its people are completely swamped by it all.
We're told that the Brits are work shy'' - I dont believe that. Its more likely to be other factors -
Like poor education''
and young people with attitude problems, are the cause than anything else. I blame the government' for its eneptness of too much regulation and political correctness for the problems we face in this island.
The lack of diciplin in schools was the worst thing for children ever.
And all this rubbish about not smacking your kids at home?
One really wonders how this country ever managed before. And it was better before - MUCH BETTER.
NOW PEOPLE ARE UNHAPPY - NO ONE KNOWS WHAT TO TALK ABOUT - MOST SUBJECTS ARE TOBOO - AND HUMOUR' WHATS THAT. ITS ALL DOWN HILL FROM NOW ON.
The truth is everything is for
Big Business - Globalism has taken over. The economy requires cheap labour - so they say lets import them and the brits will put up with it because there is nothing they can do to stop it.

An English Parliament - not practicable as too similar to the House of Commons. Regional Assemblies - already rejected (except in Greater London).
So why not give each English County (under traditional boundaries), powers similar to the Welsh/Scottish/NI assemblies - including Schools and Hospitals.
The counties vary in size but so be it - that's democracy.

Surely one way to ensure an English Grand Committee doesn't cause any problems for Labour is to make sure all matters put forward to a vote are not purely English matters.

Seriously though, Labour are to blame for this. They cobbled together a devolved system, in the same way they cobbled together a reformed House of Lords, in a messy way with no thought for how it would work out in the long run.

Nu Labour started this by giving devolution to the Scots. English MP's cannot vote on matters reserved to the Scottish Parliament.

Scottish MP's could not vote on matters reserved to the English Grand Committee.

Nu Labour only have themselves to blame for having started the process ten years ago - they will have to live with ultimate consequences.

Some honeymoon! Does GB still want to be PM?

Answers

Question 1 so what - why should english affairs depend on Scots Labour MP's to carry english matters into legislation? I don't even know the size of Brown's majority, he is Scots like me representing a Scottish constituency and I don't like paying to be represented twice to allow Brown to govern the english.

Question 2 so what who - selects the make up of Parliamentary committee's anyway?

Question 3 If the answer to your own question is true what is the point of back benchers and MP's per se for that matter. I wouldn't ask an MP for the time of day!

Question 4 assumes nothing will change - an electorally dangerous assumption someday the sleeping apathetic will wake up to the con!!!!

As a scot it is not beyond the wit of legislators to ensure that the English legislate for the English and that matters of a UK wide interest like defence and tax is voted on by the 4 devolved "parliaments" acting together with their voice being weighted in relation to their representation, i.e. the overwhelming majority of english MP's cannot ram rod UK legislation through to the detriment of the "provinces"! We don't need scots MP's in both Holyrood and Westminster what an utter waste of taxpayers money not unlke the billions we pay out for MEP's. Who asked for a political European Union anyway - the politicians forced it on us without a mandate to do so. We voted for a European Economic Community which is a million miles from where we are now, If we had anarchy it could not be much worse for the man in the street.

Independence for Scotland and Wales would sort all this perceived English constitutional problems out.
We in Wales are used to being outvoted by the English/British block. It hurts doesn't it.

Nick ,you have worked to long at the B.B.C.the thought of England getting any sort of recognition is making you a bit Queasy,A Parliament for England is whats needed,and that would work!!

The trouble with your questions is that the underlying premise is wrong - Labour may have slipped behind the Tories in England in terms of the popular vote at the last election, but they still won a clear majority of English seats. Therefore, Rifkind's proposal wouldn't really weaken Labour's position at all under the current arithmetic (unless of course there was a substantial rebellion on a given topic by English Labour MPs, as there was over tuition fees).

If the Tories really want to credibly drive home this 'no mandate to govern England' stuff, I'm afraid they'll first have to ditch their absurdly self-defeating opposition to proportional representation.

Much better questions would be - if Scottish MPs are literally banned from voting on certain issues, will the Tories show a fair and even-handed approach (I'm not holding my breath) by also scrapping the absurd anomaly under which Westminster retains the right in principle to legislate on devolved Scottish affairs? (If you think this is just a technicality, then how did London contrive to legislate on a devolved matter 'by mistake' a couple of years ago?) Also, will they campaign to give the Welsh Assembly the same powers as the Scottish Parliament - and indeed give both institutions the same power over abortion law that the Northern Ireland Assembly has - without which the operation of this scheme in practice will be an unholy mess?

Rather than concentrating on the West Lothain question (which has various complicating factors as you make clear) why don't the Conservatives focus on the simple issue of constituency representation?

Here's the average number of electors in a parliamentary constituency:

England 70,000
Scotland 55,000
Wales 56,000
Northern Ireland 67,000

I can't see any reason why the Conservatives don't make a commitment to correct this anomoly. Much more clear-cut and with positive benefits for them and - given their enduring poor performance in Scotland - little downside (though with an obvious downside for Labour and the Liberals!)

INDEPENDENCE for ENGLAND.FULL STOP.
People all have talk,talk,talk,BUT NO ACTION.

Common knowledge the ENGLISH need to be independant of the shackles our ancesters left us with.

We need to build again an ENGLISH NATION by ENGLISH PEOPLE for ENGLAND.

But we will never do it if we keep poking our nose into other nations affairs and allowing other nations to poke thier noses into ours.

The Blair government did use its Scottish MP's to keep students tuition fees in England. That was hardly fair. Ministers who are doing PR against Mr Rifkind's proposal certainly think that we are fools and that we don't remember their double talking.

Since his fellow Scots turfed him out Rifkind has had as much credibilty as Major minor.

What si needed is soem sort fo devolution to EWnglan's regions, cities etc on a fairly piecemeal basis, just as Wales' and Scotland's Parliaments are different from one another, according to the various circumstances seen there.

Londoncentricity sis what is most commonly objected to in England, as it was in Scotland and Wales.

Neither Yorkshire nor Cornwall will thank you for an English Parliament, neither will Tyneside nor Manchester be grateful for a Grand English Committee of the current English MPs.

Yet more amateur pecksniffian goggledegook posing as justice, when it is a recipie for disaster, but imagined to be the Tories' silver bullet aimed at Labour's heart.

Heigh-ho!

The mess is totally made by Gordon Brown and the now much forgotten Tony Blair who, so hell-bent on getting into power, sold the promise of devolution to the Scots (now come back to bite them with the SNP now in power). The English now realise they have lost out and want control of the country back and anyone who promises this has a sure-fired vote.

I for one am sick of subsidising the Scots and have them ruling us still. But then again we did vote for a Scottish PM in Westminster. Oh hang on, no we didn't...

Why o why is this matter being played out by politicians who do not want to accept the fact that the majority (a measure that they always work with and to)of English people want an English parliament?
The main question has to be answered by all colours of politicians and political parties (except one)including the likes of Harman, why do they obviously fear an English parliament?
They have to stop their continual fear mongering arguments that the union would colapse...it wont! Additionally accept and recognise that "Regionalisation" has been voted a big No!

Being a lay person when it comes to politics, I have to propose a complete solution (albeit radical, but quite simple really) to all our Island's woes.
1)Create an English parliament and one for each of the other nations within the UK. Elected by and with full and fair proportional representation. Abolish the House of Lords.
2) Create an Anglo Celtic Alliance (including Eire) Assembly. Meeting and based in the Isle of Man, to effectively deal with all extraneous matters affecting the Alliance.

But I doubt that we have men and women in our political parties that would have the vision and determination and unselfish awareness, to effect such a change.

I live in hope.............
Peter J.

So you would rather keep the status quo would you ? Were the views of the vast majority of the population are ignored. Labour has no mandate to govern in England, they lost the last election. More people voted conservative than labour in England.
Surprise surprise someone from the BBC doesn't like it. Labour started this game by playing the devolution card. You reap what you sow, another short sited idea introduced by T Bliar.

Why is everyone getting so hung up about national identity in relation to the regional assemblies. No-one seems to have mentioned that the largest regional assembly in the UK at the moment is ..... London. So shouldn't Rifkind's proposals really be English MPs, unless you happen to be a London MP, voting on English matters where they are otherwise devolved. All begins to unravel doesn't it.

Devolution was never about nationalism, but about making decision-making more local with democratic accountability. Nick is correct that these proposals risk a complete roadblock in both power and accountability, with the Government potentially set against the Grand Committee - with each vying for power. Also who would get the blame when things go wrong. Sorry I know we are the Government, but this was a Grand Committee decision, please blame them.

What this really shows is that the Tories have given up on Scotland and Wales and have become simply an English party. Perhaps they would be better off developing policies that attract people in all regions of the UK.

Here's an idea.

1) Stop having two lots of MPs in the devolved regions. Sort this out at the next election for this constituencies.

2) Have regional parliaments (including England) convening on Monday to Wednesday to discuss devolved items.

3) Have all MPs come to London on Thursday and Friday to do "British" stuff.

4) Each devolved region has a First Minister from from the party which has the majority in that region

5) The UK Prime Minister is from the party with the majority in the UK.

Basically a federal system but with only one set of MPs.

But, that'll be too much work I hear the devolved MPs say. However isn't that what basically happened before devolution and what the English MPs do now?

Why is everyone getting so hung up about national identity in relation to the regional assemblies. No-one seems to have mentioned that the largest regional assembly in the UK at the moment is ..... London. So shouldn't Rifkind's proposals really be English MPs, unless you happen to be a London MP, voting on English matters where they are otherwise devolved. All begins to unravel doesn't it.

Devolution was never about nationalism, but about making decision-making more local with democratic accountability. Nick is correct that these proposals risk a complete roadblock in both power and accountability, with the Government potentially set against the Grand Committee - with each vying for power. Also who would get the blame when things go wrong. Sorry I know we are the Government, but this was a Grand Committee decision, please blame them.

What this really shows is that the Tories have given up on Scotland and Wales and have become simply an English party. Perhaps they would be better off developing policies that attract people in all regions of the UK.

Nick, there is a more radical solution that should suit everybody. The Scottish parliament already has two classes of MSP, constituency members and regional list members elected under PR. For reasons I will not go into here, there is a very good argument to suggest that these two classes of MSP should be elected separately, two years apart, so that the parliament is refreshed half way through its four year term and the list MSP election is effectively a referendum on the conduct of the government of the day. If the list MSPs also became Scottish representatives in a UK legislature, based as previously suggested in the House of Lords, there is a direct link between the devolved parliament and the UK government. Adopting the same principle for English (based in the current Commons), Welsh and Northern Irish parliaments would provide answers to a number of questions: 1. Fixed term parliaments; 2. proportional representation; 3. the West Lothian Question as it applies throughout the Uk, not just Scotland/England. The Tories current ideas are a clear political attempt to embarass the Labour government, not a realistic proposal to solve the difficulties that the devolution process has created. Until all parties start to attempt to find an answer acceptable to all parts of the UK, break-up of the Union is inevitable.