THE Conservative Government's plan to restrict the voting rights of Scottish MPs, by simply changing Commons rules and without a full-blown parliamentary Bill, will go ahead despite SNP protests, MPs have been told.
The declaration by Commons Leader Chris Grayling came as the Government published the Scotland Bill on giving more powers to Holyrood. The first main debate about it will take place on June 8.
During Business Questions in the House, Pete Wishart, the Nationalists' Shadow Commons Leader, raised the issue of English Votes for English Laws; David Cameron's response to extra powers to the Scottish Parliament, which seeks to ensure England-only laws have the consent of English MPs.
Mr Wishart argued that something so "constitutionally important" as Evel had to be discussed and scrutinised properly via legislation and not simply by amending standing orders, which govern how the Commons work.
His intervention followed that yesterday by his colleague Alex Salmond, the former First Minister, who questioned whether the Government could change the rules of the Commons unilaterally and called for an investigation.
The Speaker, John Bercow, who agreed to look into the matter, confirmed that standing orders could be changed in the normal way of the Government putting down a motion for debate and vote. This meant changes could be made without passing a new law.
Mr Grayling told MPs that Evel was about "creating a fair devolution settlement for the whole of the United Kingdom".
He went on: "We will, in 10 days' time, be debating the Second Reading of the Scotland Bill, which extends substantial powers to the Scottish Parliament.
"You must understand, it is important to make sure we have a devolution settlement that is seen by all people in the United Kingdom as fair for their interests.
"That is what we intend to do and it is right and proper this is debated in this House and it will be. It is for this House to change its standing orders and it will be done - if it is done - by a vote of all members of this House, which is right and proper.
"If all the members of this House vote for a change, that change will happen," he added.
Following Mr Salmond's call for an inquiry into the way the Government intended to proceed to introduce Evel, Mr Bercow stressed it was for the House to decide how and whether to change its standing orders.
"From time to time, the Government tables motions to make changes to the standing orders; sometimes in response to a recommendation of the procedure committee, sometimes on its own initiative.
"I would not accept the motion if it breached the rules of the House but it is not for the chair to judge the merits of a proposal. It is for the House to decide whether to agree to the Government's proposal."
He added: "While it is certainly an important responsibility of the chair to ensure members are treated fairly and impartially in accordance with the rules of the House, this does not limit the power of the House to determine its own rules and procedures."
Changes to standing orders are generally debated on a simple time-limited motion, which is printed on the Order Paper. It allows issues to be resolved in hours.
The SNP wants the proposed changes to be made via legislation, which would require several stages of scrutiny and amendment, and a series of votes; typically over weeks or months.
Even if this were to take place, the resulting changes would still have to be made to standing orders via a Commons motion.
A high-profile example of an attempt to change standing orders took place on the eve of the General Election when former Commons Leader William Hague tabled a change to standing orders that would have altered the rules for re-election of the Speaker; a move widely viewed as an attempt to unseat Mr Bercow.
The Commons descended into several hours of chaos on the last day before MPs broke up for the campaign and ministers were ultimately defeated in the lobbies after the proposed change was rejected.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article